Sanchayita Lahkar

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied pre-arrest bail to a factory owner accused of public shaming and parading workers with placards labeling them as thieves. The court stated that the accused’s actions amounted to a "Taliban-style punishment" and that granting anticipatory bail would not be appropriate at this stage. The decision was pronounced by Justice Namit Kumar on March 12, 2025, in response to the petitioner’s plea for protection from arrest.

The petitioner approached the court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 8 dated January 22, 2025. The case was registered under Sections 127, 356, 74, 75, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, forced three girls, an elderly woman, and a young boy to walk through the streets with placards around their necks reading “I am a thief, I confess my guilt.” The incident was recorded and circulated on social media.

Also Read: When Can Criminal Trial Be Transferred From One State Under S.406 CrPC? Supreme Court Explains

According to the prosecution, the case originated when Lady Sub-Inspector Sunita Kaur and other police officials were on patrol duty in Ludhiana on January 22, 2025. A special informer alerted them about a viral video showing victims being paraded through Gurpreet Nagar, Bahadur Ke Road, Ludhiana, with their faces blackened and placards hanging around their necks. The victims, identified as employees at Deep Collection Factory, were accused of theft by the factory owner, Parvinder Singh.

The police initiated an investigation and identified the accused as the factory owner, his manager Manpreet Singh, a worker named Mohammad Cash, and other unidentified individuals. The FIR was registered on the same day under Sections 127, 356, 74, 75, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the accused forcibly paraded the victims in the streets, making them admit guilt publicly. The police contended that this act violated the dignity of the victims and affected their social reputation. The status report submitted by the prosecution stated that the accused played a central role in the incident and that crucial digital evidence, including video recordings stored on the factory’s mobile phone and surveillance system, was yet to be recovered.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case. It was submitted that most of the charges against him were bailable, except for Sections 74 and 75 of the BNS. The counsel further pointed out that two co-accused, Manpreet Singh and Mohammad Muskan Raza, had already been granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on February 10, 2025. It was contended that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation and should be granted the same relief as his co-accused.

Court Observations

The court examined the prosecution’s contentions and stated that "the mobile phone of the accused and NVR/DVR installed in his factory is yet to be recovered and required for proper and fair investigation of the matter." The status report filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, indicated that the accused was evading arrest and that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover electronic evidence.

The court referred to the bail order granted to the co-accused and recorded that "it is not yet known as to from whose mobile phone the video clip showing the blackened faces of the victims and having a cardboard in their necks has gone viral and who has blackened the faces of victims and put cardboard in their necks with incriminating wording."

The court noted that one of the victims was a minor and that an application had been submitted to the police to invoke provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. It recorded that "the act of the accused persons including the petitioner was not an acceptable human act by any stretch of imagination rather it was an act of 'Taliban-style punishment' by taking the law in their own hand and not realizing that such an act may affect and tarnish the social image of the victims."

The court further stated that "some of the victims are girls and even minors, and this act may also spoil their future by lowering their reputation and image before the society at large, which is a serious concern." The court observed that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could hinder the investigation and allow the accused to influence or intimidate witnesses.

Also Read: "Two of the Three Reasons for Refusal Were Not Even Notified to the Petitioner": Bombay High Court Sets Aside Patent Rejection and Directs Reconsideration

After considering the facts, the court denied the petitioner’s request for pre-arrest bail, stating that "no ground is made out to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as his custodial interrogation is required for recovery of his mobile phone and NVR/DVR installed in his factory." The court also noted that if bail were granted, "he may influence or intimidate the witnesses and destroy the evidence."

However, the court permitted the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within ten days and seek regular bail. It directed that "if the petitioner chooses to surrender before the trial court within a period of 10 days from today and moves an appropriate application seeking regular bail, in such eventuality, the trial court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible."

The court further stated that "nothing observed here-in-above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case during trial."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: P.S. Ahluwalia, Jasraj Singh & Jaiveer Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondents:  Yuvraj Singh Tiwana Additional Advocate General (for the State of Punjab) & Vishavjeet Singh Rishi, Advocate (for the victims)

Case Title: Parvinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:035508
Case Number: CRM-M-11149-2025
Bench: Justice Namit Kumar

[Read/Download order]