NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has issued summonses to industrialist Bina Modi and senior advocate Lalit Bhasin in an assault case filed by her son and Godfrey Phillips India (GPI) executive director Samir Modi, observing that there is sufficient “prima facie material” to proceed against them.Samir had lodged a complaint at Delhi’s Sarita Vihar police station in 2024, alleging that Bina’s personal security officer, Surendra Prasad, physically assaulted him and prevented him from entering a board meeting at GPI’s Jasola office on May 30. According to the prosecution, the attack resulted in a fractured right index finger. It was submitted that the injury was so grave that the finger was “broken into two parts and required a screw and wire to be put together”.In 2025, Delhi Police filed a chargesheet naming Prasad under CrPC sections 325 and 341, but submitted there was “insufficient material” to proceed against Bina and Bhasin. Samir subsequently filed a protest petition seeking cognisance against them as well. He alleged that Prasad stopped him from entering the boardroom on Bina’s instructions and assaulted him when he insisted on attending. Bina and Bhasin later insisted on proceeding with the meeting despite his injury, Samir further alleged.Judicial magistrate Aneeza Bishnoi observed that although the evidence against Bina and Bhasin was circumstantial, there was sufficient material indicating their prima facie involvement. The court held that the investigating officer could not “exonerate” them “based on the sole statement” of Prasad.The medico-legal certificate and CCTV footage showed that an altercation took place, the court said, and summoned all three on May 7. A detailed evaluation of evidence isn’t required at this stage, the court noted, adding that the “material forms a prima facie chain suggesting a meeting of minds among the accused”.Commenting on Prasad’s conduct, Bishnoi said even if the complainant wasn’t invited to the meeting, “causing grievous injury would be unlawful”. The court also took note of Prasad’s changing statements regarding whether he stopped only Samir from attending the meeting. While it was claimed that others were also not allowed in, the court pointed out that the submitted footage showed only Samir being barred.