Delhi HC Opens Contempt Case Over Flashing Gun At Court Commissioner

The Delhi High Court has recently initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Nitin Bansal for allegedly displaying a pistol during an inspection by a court commissioner at his office.

Justice Subramonium Prasad made this decision after reviewing the court commissioner’s report and statements from a police officer.

The report detailed that when the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) entered Bansal’s office, an air gun was found on the table.

Justice Prasad noted, “In view of the report of the Local Commissioner and the statement of the ASI… this Court is of the opinion that prima facie a case of interference with the administration of justice is made out which amounts to criminal contempt.” He emphasized that Bansal had obstructed the court officer in fulfilling her duties.

On October 29, Justice Prasad directed the Registrar General to submit the case records to the Chief Justice for referral to the appropriate Division Bench handling criminal contempt cases.

The court was alerted on September 17, 2024, when the Local Commissioner filed an inspection report indicating that Bansal had violated a previous court order from May 31, 2024, suggesting prima facie contempt.

During a hearing on September 19, 2024, it was reported that Bansal reacted aggressively and placed the weapon on his office table. The High Court required him to appear at the next hearing and submit an affidavit explaining his actions regarding the firearm during the commission’s visit.

Bansal’s affidavit claimed that the pistol mentioned in the report was not a real firearm but rather an air gun, which, according to regulations, does not require a license. He asserted that the air gun was intended to scare off animals like monkeys and stray dogs in the remote area where his factory is located. Furthermore, he stated that the air gun had been on the table prior to the Local Commissioner’s arrival.

However, the High Court remarked, “Even assuming that the stand of the Respondent is correct that the pistol in question was already present on the table… there was no necessity for the pistol to be kept on the table at the time when the Local Commissioner was visiting the premises because keeping a weapon on the table in itself is sufficient to intimidate any person.”

Bansal’s argument that the air gun was merely a toy meant to deter animals was met with skepticism by the court. Justice Prasad stated, “This Court fails to understand how a toy gun without pellets can scare animals and monkeys. Therefore, the stand taken by Nitin Bansal does not satisfy this Court at this juncture.”

This case highlights concerns about the use of weapons in a court-related context, underscoring the need for proper decorum and respect for judicial proceedings.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International