Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 69 of 2024 registered at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana. The Court held that pre-trial custodial interrogation was not warranted and directed that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. The Court further issued significant observations regarding the use of the term “bouncer” by private security personnel and called upon the State to take regulatory steps in accordance with statutory provisions.

The petitioner filed a second anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after withdrawing an earlier application due to non-disclosure of criminal antecedents. The petition pertained to FIR No. 69 dated 28 March 2024, registered at Police Station Samrala, Police District Khanna, under Sections 177, 420, 506, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Equal Pension For All Retired High Court Judges | One Rank One Pension Must Be The Norm | Source Of Appointment Cannot Determine Post-Retirement Benefits

The FIR was based on an application dated 3 November 2023 submitted by the complainant, proprietor of Jass Security Khanna Agency, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Khanna. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused Roshan Lal threatened him with dire consequences over the phone, published defamatory content on social media, and operated an illegal security agency named “Fateh Group” without government approval. The complainant and his employees allegedly suffered mental agony and business losses due to these actions.

An inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Detective, Khanna, found that the complainant had requisite government approval for his agency, while the petitioner and co-accused were running an unauthorized security agency in violation of the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007. The inquiry further revealed defamation and threats issued through social media. A legal opinion was sought and obtained from the District Attorney, Ludhiana, who concurred with the inquiry findings and recommended registration of FIR under the aforementioned sections.

Subsequently, Roshan Lal was arrested on 23 April 2024, and items including a mobile phone, uniform, shoes, and ID card were recovered. The petitioner’s counsel argued that operating an unlicensed agency was a regulatory lapse and not grounds for denial of bail. It was further submitted that denial of bail for not surrendering a uniform was unjustified and that pre-trial detention would result in undue hardship.

The State and complainant opposed the bail, citing the illegal operation and defamatory conduct of the petitioner. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had not been arrested despite the passage of time since the registration of the FIR and held that pre-trial custody was not justified.

The Court stated in paragraph 8 that “this is not a case where pre-trial custodial interrogation is required or would be justified. Thus, this Court does not deem it appropriate to dismiss the bail petition only to permit custodial interrogation, which could have been done otherwise. As such, the petitioner is entitled to bail.”

It further recorded in paragraph 9 that “provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. If the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate.”

In paragraph 10, the Court stated, “this order is subject to the petitioner joining the investigation as and when called by the Investigator and also to appear in the Court as and when directed to do so. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.”

The Court observed that the primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful space. In hotels and bars, their job is to curtail disruptive conduct, respectfully stop uninvited people, and remove unruly individuals while maintaining boundaries and without compromising dignity.

They are hired because they are trained in rapid emergency responses, skilled in monitoring, controlling, and reporting any nuisance, threat, or criminal activity to the police or concerned authorities, and capable of de-escalating potentially volatile situations to ensure the safety and security of those around.

However, when these same employers or employees become miscreants, assuming themselves to be extra-constitutional authorities and taking pride in exuberant arrogance, using threats, intimidation, physical coercion, and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for society.

The Court recorded that in this part of the country, using the term "Bouncers" for workers in security agencies is intended to serve a dual purpose: to invoke fear, anxiety, and terror in the minds of the public and to intimidate others.

Such use is impermissible in any civilized setup, including the State, especially in a democratic society. It is demeaning, as it reflexively strips off any empathetic or humanistic qualities in a person, leaving behind a degraded, damaged, negative, and robotic connotation, akin to slaves acting on the whims and commands of their master.

This terminology reduces the respectable role of a trained security guard to that of an enforcer operating through confrontation and intimidation rather than through respectful civil dialogue.

 Such agents or employees, regardless of their roles, titles, or descriptions including ‘bouncers’, are not above the law or other human beings and are certainly not enforcers of the law.

The Court further stated that the concern lies in the passive endorsement of the term “Bouncer” by the State or the Executive, which remains oblivious to what the term has started to represent.

 The Court questioned how the identity of a particular section of employees or workers could be so restrictively defined, named, or termed as a “Bouncer” with the State’s permission.

The Court stated that its role is to sensitize the Executive and it is up to the State to take or not take any steps to ensure that the term "Bouncer" is not used by any recovery or security agents or their agencies for their employees.

Also Read: Calcutta HC Dismisses Plea Against Tribunal Order In SARFAESI Case | Fair Hearing Was Given | No Arbitrariness In Manner Of Disposal As Parties Argued Entire Matter On Merits

It stated that security guards and personnel should associate their roles with respect, dignity, and responsibility, and should view their jobs in the proper light, taking into account the civic duty, responsibility, and accountability attached to such positions.

They should not perceive themselves merely as people employed to showcase unwarranted muscle power and aggression, subjecting innocent citizens to humiliation and unjust, harsh treatment.

The petition was allowed in terms mentioned above, and all pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Bal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

For the Complainant: Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate

Case Title: Taranjeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:064373

Case Number: CRM-M-43720-2024

Bench: Justice Anoop Chitkara

[Read/Download order]