Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Man Who Threatened Court Commissioner with Gun
SC grants interim bail to Faridabad man who threatened court commissioner, imposes ₹1 lakh compensatory cost under Article 142
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to a Faridabad man accused of threatening a court-appointed local commissioner with a gun during a judicial inspection, directing him to deposit ₹1 lakh as a compensatory penalty.
The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the man had surrendered on November 6 and had been in custody for six days. He also tendered an unconditional apology before the Court.
Justice Bagchi remarked that the petitioner’s air gun “should be seized under the Arms Act,” to which Farasat responded that an air gun did not require a licence.
In its order, the Bench recorded that the petitioner had surrendered and filed an affidavit of unconditional apology. “We deem it appropriate to use our powers under Article 142 in order to do complete justice,” the Court observed while issuing notice.
The Court directed that the petitioner be released on interim bail, subject to payment of a compensatory penalty of ₹1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund within two weeks of release.
The Court clarified that this amount “shall not be construed as a fine under the Contempt of Courts Act.”
The Bench further stated that if the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period, the interim bail would stand cancelled automatically.
Previously, on November 3, the Court had come down heavily on a man accused of threatening a woman lawyer, appointed as a Court Commissioner, with a pistol during the execution of a commission order. The Court had directed him to surrender before the jail authorities on November 6 before considering his plea against a one-month jail sentence imposed by the Delhi High Court.
Justice Surya Kant had remarked that the accused deserved to be in jail, observing that the woman lawyer had shown “magnanimity” by not filing a more serious complaint. “Despite committing all this kind of nonsense… he has not even a single word of repentance in the entire petition,” Justice Kant said. “He misbehaves with a lady lawyer and still tries to accuse her. Why should we not enhance the sentence?”
The direction came in a contempt case that originated from Delhi High Court proceedings over the disposal of 30,000 tons of industrial coal. The High Court had sentenced a man to one month’s simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 for criminal contempt after he allegedly threatened a Court-appointed commissioner with a gun during a local commission proceeding in Faridabad.
During the execution of the commission at a Faridabad premises in July last year, the Local Commissioner reported that Bansal attempted to intimidate her by placing a pistol on the table. The weapon was later found to be real, not a toy gun as claimed by the contemnor.
The Court thus declined interim relief, ordering: “No ground to entertain the interim prayer. Let the petitioner first surrender before jail authorities on November 6.”
Case Title: Nitin Bansal v. State of Delhi
Hearing Date: November 12, 2025
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi