'You Deserve Jail' : Supreme Court Slams Man Accused Of Threatening Woman Lawyer With Pistol During Commission Visit

The Supreme Court today came down on a man who allegedly threatened a woman lawyer appointed as Court Commissioner with a pistol during execution of the commission.It asked him to surrender before jail authorities on November 6, before entertaining his prayer against the one month jail sentence imposed by the Delhi High Court.A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. It has been next listed on November 11.During the hearing, the bench expressed serious displeasure at the petitioner-accused's conduct and opined that he deserved to be in jail. Justice Kant even said that the Local Commissioner showed magnanimity in the kind of complaint she filed, as she could have made a more serious complaint.The judges also noted that the alleged conduct was exhibited by the petitioner in presence of police officials. If they were not there, something untoward (like physical assault) may have happened with the Local Commissioner.Deprecating the conduct of the petitioner, and noting that he did not show repentance anywhere in his petition, Justice Kant said,"Despite committing all this kind of nonsense, for which High Court should really have taken some really harsh action, he has been allowed to go so scot-free...he has not even a single word of repentance in the entire petition. He is still trying to accuse the Local Commissioner. Why this young lady would say [falsely]? [This person] telling lies in open court...found to have misled the Court and then he files an appeal! Why should we not enhance the sentence?"Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for the accused (petitioner-Nitin Bansal) and disputed the facts of the case. He submitted that there were many people present during the commission, including 5 police officials. As such, there was no question of intimidation. It was further highlighted that the police officials did not sign the Local Commissioner's report. The senior counsel also urged that the "pistol" was infact an "air gun/toy gun", which was not pulled out by the petitioner (as alleged by the Local Commissioner) but rather it was lying on a table since the outset.In response to the submissions, Justice Kant said, "Just imagine. These 5 policemen were there, and despite that this man could create such a ruckus and scene there. Had she gone there bonafidely thinking that I am a Court officer, this man would have led to do something very serious. [Going by] the conduct he has exhibited! Thank God that police people were there. Otherwise this man could have physically assaulted her".When Farasat submitted that the petitioner, who was present in Court, is willing to give an unconditional apology to the lady advocate, the judge retorted, "[he] must go and surrender. Unless he goes to jail, we are not going to entertain anything. This man, in entire SLP, does not mention a single word. He misbehaves with a lady lawyer. She could infact have lodged some better complaint against him. She has been very very magnanimous and graceful about his misconduct".On Farasat's contention that the "pistol" was infact an "air gun", the bench noted that the petitioner tried to mislead the High Court by claiming that the pistol was an "air gun/toy gun". "he had the cheeks to even mislead Division bench of the High Court to say that he was using a toy gun...What is a toy gun? Why is he showing a toy gun to a Local Commissioner?", commented Justice Kant.Justice Baghchi, on his part, added, "What do you mean by a 'slash' toy gun? That is intentional. It should not have been there. He should be in jail. Not only did he intimidate an officer of the Court, a lady officer who goes as a special officer, in the proceedings he tries to make an alternate affidavit 'air gun/toy gun'? That's noted by the judge"."It was already on the table, he did not pull out any gun", replied Farasat. "That shows his dangerous nature", remarked Justice Bagchi.Subsequently, Farasat submitted that the petitioner has a speech impediment and there was a possibility that the lady officer felt he was saying something which he wasn't.Surprised, Justice Kant exclaimed, "With your experience Mr Farasat, what are you saying? She is absolutely honestly telling each and every word...his counsel told him about the court order and asked to comply, but [he refused to show records]...this is the respect he shows to his advocate!"On a submission that the Commission was executed fully, the bench observed that it was only because of police intervention.At last, the judge said, "Go surrender, then we will see". The order was dictated thus: "No ground to entertain the interim prayer. Let the petitioner first surrender before jail authorities on November 6".BackgroundThe case arose out of suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court after an order was passed by a single judge dealing with a plea for interim relief against Bansal's father. The case related to disposal of 30,000 tons of industrial coal.In May last year, ...

'You Deserve Jail' : Supreme Court Slams Man Accused Of Threatening Woman Lawyer With Pistol During Commission Visit

Debby Jain

Court asked the accused to surrender, before any of his prayers could be considered.

Tags