In relation to an assault allegation brought by her son, Samir Modi, executive director of Godfrey Phillips India (GPI), a Delhi court has summoned business magnate Bina Modi and seasoned lawyer Lalit Bhasin. The Times of India said that the court ruled that there was enough “prima facie material” to bring charges against them.
According to TOI, Samir Modi went to the Sarita Vihar police station in 2024 and claimed that Surendra Prasad, Bina Modi’s personal security guard, had beaten him and prevented him from attending a board meeting on May 30 at GPI’s Jasola headquarters. His right index finger was cracked and “broken into two parts and required a screw and wire to be put together,” according to the prosecution, who also claimed that the alleged assault resulted in a major injury.
According to the article, Delhi Police charged Prasad in 2025 under CrPC sections 325 and 341 but informed the court that there was “insufficient material” to prosecute Bina Modi and Lalit Bhasin. Then, claiming that Prasad had followed Bina Modi’s orders and attacked him when he insisted on going to the meeting, Samir Modi filed a protest petition demanding cognisance against them as well. He also claimed that despite his injury, Bina Modi and Bhasin decided to go forward with the meeting.
According to TOI, judicial magistrate Aneeza Bishnoi noted that despite the circumstantial nature of the evidence against Bina Modi and Bhasin, it nonetheless demonstrated their prima facie involvement. The investigating officer was unable to “exonerate” them “based on the sole statement” of Prasad, the court ruled.
The medico-legal certificate and CCTV evidence, which demonstrated an incident had occurred, were also cited by the court. Consequently, it called all three defendants for a conference on May 7, stating that the “material forms a prima facie chain suggesting a meeting of minds among the accused” and that a thorough assessment of the evidence is not necessary at this early stage, according to TOI.
The magistrate commented on Prasad’s actions, stating that “causing grievous injury would be unlawful” even if the complaint had not been invited to the meeting. The court also pointed out contradictions in Prasad’s claims on whether he had stopped Samir Modi alone from entering. According to the TOI report, the video that was presented in court only showed Samir being prohibited, despite the claims that others were also stopped.
