The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to businessman Nitin Bansal, who had threatened a court-appointed local commissioner with an air gun during a judicial inspection in Faridabad [Nitin Bansal vs. The State of Delhi].
Noting that Bansal had surrendered and spent six days in custody, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that the relief would be conditional upon his depositing ₹1 lakh with the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Welfare Fund within two weeks of his release.
The Court passed the order while hearing a plea by Bansal challenging his conviction and one-month jail sentence for criminal contempt of court imposed by the Delhi High Court.
At the outset, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Bansal, informed the Bench that his client had surrendered in compliance with the Court’s earlier order.
“I have surrendered on 6th. Undergone six days of custody. I have tendered an unconditional apology,” Farasat said.
Noting Farasat's submissions, the Bench directed that Bansal be released on interim bail.
“We deem it appropriate to use our powers under Article 142 in order to do complete justice and issue the following directions: the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to the condition that he shall deposit a compensatory penalty of ₹1 lakh with the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Welfare Fund within two weeks from the date of release. It shall not be construed as a fine under the Contempt of Courts Act. If the compensatory cost is not deposited, interim bail shall stand cancelled,” the order stated.
The order marked a significant shift from the Court’s earlier stance, when the same Bench had refused to grant any interim protection from arrest, remarking that his behaviour towards the local commissioner had been scandalous.
During that hearing, Justice Kant had observed that the High Court had already shown undue leniency by allowing Bansal to surrender at a later date instead of being taken into custody immediately.
“Before committing all these kinds of nonsense for which the High Court should have taken some harsh action, he has been allowed to go scot-free. He has no word of repentance, instead trying to accuse the local commissioner. Telling lies in open court, found to be a dishonest person, then he has the cheek to file this appeal?” Justice Kant had said.
The case stems from a dispute over 30,000 tonnes of industrial coal involving Nitin's father, Ashok Bansal. In May 2024, the Delhi High Court had restrained Ashok Bansal from dealing with the coal and later appointed Advocate Nandini Bali as a local commissioner to inspect the family’s premises in Faridabad.
According to Bali's report, during the inspection, Bansal behaved aggressively and placed a pistol on the table in an attempt to intimidate her and the accompanying police officers. The police later seized the weapon, which turned out to be an air gun.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta of the Delhi High Court held that such conduct constituted criminal contempt.
The High Court said his actions reflected “a deliberate attempt with evil motive” to obstruct the administration of justice and therefore attracted punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
It sentenced him to one month’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000, with a further 15 days’ imprisonment in default.
While the High Court initially directed immediate custody, it later allowed him to surrender by November 6, considering that there was a wedding in his family.
Instead of surrendering, Bansal moved the Supreme Court, prompting the bench to sharply criticise his conduct and refuse any interim protection.
“He misbehaved with a lady lawyer. She has been very magnanimous and grateful about his misconduct. If these kinds of scoundrels are allowed to do this kind of activity…” Justice Kant had said at the previous hearing.
Following that hearing, Bansal surrendered as directed and remained in custody for six days before tendering an unconditional apology, which the Supreme Court has now accepted while granting interim bail.
The matter will now be heard after the Delhi government files its response.
[Read Live Coverage]