Punjab and Haryana High Court flags ‘bouncer' menace in Punjab, says it's spreading fear
The High Court passed the order late last month, and the ruling was uploaded Tuesday.
The case was based on a complaint by Jagvir Singh, owner of Jass Security Khanna Agency, who alleged that the accused Taranjeet Singh and his co-accused Roshan Lal ran an unlicensed agency named Fateh Group, and had threatened and defamed him. As per the complaint, 'The petitioner Taranjeet Singh, along with co-accused Roshan Lal, threatened the complainant with dire consequences through mobile phone, and they also used to defame the business of the complainant by posting false stories on Facebook and Instagram.'
An inquiry by the deputy superintendent of police (Detective), Khanna, confirmed that Taranjeet Singh and his associate were operating without a licence, in violation of the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007.
While noting that Taranjeet Singh had earlier withdrawn a bail plea due to an undisclosed past FIR under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, the court held there was no need for custodial interrogation. 'This means that if the police were, in fact, interested in arresting the petitioner, they would have done so because they also arrested the co-accused Roshan. Be that as it may, this is not a case where pre-trial custodial interrogation is required or would be justified.'
The court granted him anticipatory bail subject to furnishing bonds and cooperating with the investigation.
But beyond the bail order, the court's remarks targeted deeper concerns about the abuse of power in the private security sector. Referring to the Fateh Bouncer Security Group, the court observed, 'The paramount concern for this Court is the use of the word 'Bouncer' in 'Fateh Bouncer Security Group.' Incidents like these highlight a disturbing trend where a particular segment of employers and employees, under the guise of a simple job description 'Bouncer,' have started adopting a terrorising and bullying role, becoming too comfortable donning an armour of hostility, aggression and subjecting the citizenry to indignity and humiliation at will, unafraid of any negative consequences, presuming themselves to have unfettered powers over the law.'
Quoting dictionary definitions, the court said: 'According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a bouncer is one that bounces: such as (a): one employed to restrain or eject disorderly persons; (b): a bouncing ground ball. According to the Oxford Dictionary, a bouncer is defined as a person employed to eject disorderly persons from a public place, especially a bar or nightclub.'
The court noted that the term, as used in Punjab, had come to denote private muscle power beyond legal bounds — 'extra-constitutional authorities' who 'take pride in exuberant arrogance, using threats, intimidation, physical coercion, and brute force as weapons.'
Emphasising that the term has no legal backing, the court stated, 'The Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, does not refer to security guards as 'bouncers.' The security agencies have to employ security guards as per the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, and in the state of Punjab, also as per the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007.'
It added that the original role of security personnel — to ensure safety and respect — had been perverted, with 'bouncers' now instilling 'fear, anxiety, and terror in the mind of the public and to intimidate others.'
The court criticised Punjab for turning a blind eye. 'The State is also aware of how the term 'bouncer' is being used by security agencies to throw around their weight and exert their influence, as explicitly mentioned in this FIR. However, the State chooses to remain unperturbed, unconcerned, and, therefore, insensitive towards such an issue.'
It urged the executive to step in, observing, 'It is up to the State to take or not to take any steps to ensure that the term 'Bouncer' is not used by any recovery or security agents or their agencies for their employees so that these security guards/personnel associate their respective roles with respect, dignity and responsibility.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Man posing as UK-based doctor duped Lucknow woman duped of Rs 2.10 lakh
A woman working at a healthcare centre in Uttar Pradesh's Lucknow was duped of Rs 2.10 lakh by a man claiming to be an England-based doctor on social media, said police on Friday, adding that a case of fraud was registered and the cyber crime cell is investigating the to police, Sandhya, a resident of Bigahu village in Kakori, came into contact with a man named "Dr. Sameer" on Facebook on July 20, who claimed to be a doctor from England and started the conversation by discussing health-related few days later, he added her to a WhatsApp group and told her he was sending a gift for her. Sandhya initially declined, but later agreed after receiving multiple messages. Shortly after, Sandhya received a phone call from someone who identified himself as a customs officer at Mumbai Airport. The caller informed her that in order to release the parcel being sent to her, she would need to pay tax and other related charges. Trusting the caller, Sandhya transferred a total of Rs 2.10 lakh in three separate installments. However, she never received the promised gifts or the parcel, which made her suspicious of the situation. Realising she had likely been deceived, Sandhya contacted the police and filed a complaint about the Inspector Satish Rathore said a case has been registered and efforts are underway to trace those involved. Furthermore, police advised the public to avoid sharing personal details with strangers on social media and to be cautious of offers involving gifts or parcels.- EndsMust Watch
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
₹98.25-crore Corporation contract irregularities during S.P. Velumani's tenure: Madras HC questions special court over delay in taking chargesheets on file
The Madras High Court has called for a report from a Special Court in Chennai with respect to the delay in taking on file the chargsheets filed with respect to alleged irregularities in the award of contracts by Greater Chennai and Coimbatore Municipal Corporations when S.P. Velumani of the AIADMK served as Municipal Administration Minister between 2014 and 2018. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases to submit the report by August 22, 2025. He also directed S. Vimala, serving as the Superintendent of Police in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), to file an affidavit explaining the substantial delay in obtaining sanction to prosecute the public servants listed as accused in the case. The directions were issued on a second contempt of court petition filed by anti-corruption organisation Arappor Iyakkam, represented by its managing trustee Jayaram Venkatesan, against the Indian Police Service (IPS) officer. The present contempt plea had been filed for non-compliance of an order passed by the court on April 5, 2024, in the first contempt of court petition filed against her predecessor. Explaining the history of the case, the petitioner's counsel V. Suresh and D. Nagasaila said, his client had lodged a complaint with the DVAC way back in 2018 regarding illegal award of corporation contracts to those who shared close ties with the then Minister, thereby resulting in the unjust enrichment of public officials and diversion of the money earned into select companies and firms. When there was no response, Arappor Iyakkam filed a public interest litigation petition seeking a direction to register a First Information Report and constitute a special investigation team. The High Court on July 19, 2021, ordered that 'the State should spare no effort in getting to the bottom of the matter and proceed against those found to be responsible for the irregularities.' Subsequently, a FIR was registered against Mr. Velmunani and 16 others on August 9, 2021. However, another Division Bench of the High Court on November 30, 2022, quashed the FIR with respect to Mr. Velumani alone, for want of prima facie materials, but granted liberty to the DVAC to include his name too in the chargesheet if it was able to gather any fresh materials during the course of investigation. In 2023, six private firms approached the High Court to quash the FIR with respect to them too. On August 2, 2023, Justice Venkatesh refused to quash the FIR and asked the companies to wait and see whether their names figure in the final report (chargesheet). He also directed the DVAC to complete the investigation and file the final report within six weeks after obtaining sanction to prosecute the public servants. It was complaining about disobedience of this order, Arappor Iyakkam had filed its first contempt plea in 2024 against the then DVAC SP A. Myilvaganan. Justice Venkatesh closed the plea on April 5, 2024, after recording the submission of DVAC that it had filed two chargesheets before the special court on March 1, 2024. Then, he directed the special court to act upon those chargesheets within two weeks. Alleging disobedience of this order, the complainant had filed the present contempt plea against incumbent SP Ms. Vimala who told Justice Venkatesh that the chargesheets were returned by the special court on multiple occassions for rectification of defects. She said, almost all the defects pointed out by the court were rectified and the chargesheets were finally resubmitted before the court on July 12, 2025. Ms. Vimala said, the case was related to a loss of ₹98.25 crore caused to the Greater Chennai and Coimbatore Municipal Corporations. Hence, the DVAC had filed the first chargesheet against 58 accused persons along with over one lakh pages of tender related documents. The second chargesheet was filed against 40 accused persons along with over 50,000 pages of tender related documents. The special court returned the chargesheets on August 16, 2024 with an observation that several documents were not filled in OCR format, had dull impressions and were in a torn condition. The DVAC rectified the defects and resubmitted the chargesheets on November 11, 2024. However, the special court returned them again on February 14, 2025 for submission of additional supporting materials. The special court insisted on submitting the Government Orders related to the appointing authority of the public servants who had been listed as the accused, the age proof of the accused, their photographs, e-mail IDs, contact numbers, and so on. The chargesheets were finally resubmitted on July 12, 2025, along with all documents, except the GO, as sought by the special court, Ms. Vimala said. Stating she had no deliberate intention to disobey court orders, the SP urged the court purge her from the contempt proceedings. However, Justice Venkatesh directed her to explain the long delay in obtaining sanction to prosecute the public servants and also called for a report from the special court for not having taken the chargesheets on file within two weeks as ordered by the High Court on April 5, 2024.
News18
6 hours ago
- News18
Shilpa Shetty Shares FIRST Post Amid Rs 60 Crore Cheating Case, Chants 'Jai Hind'
Last Updated: On Thursday, Shilpa Shetty and her husband Raj Kundra were booked by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for allegedly cheating a Mumbai-based businessman of Rs 60.4 crore. Hours after Shilpa Shetty and her husband Raj Kundra were accused of cheating a Mumbai-based businessman of Rs 60 crore, the actress has now shared a new post on her Instagram stories. On Friday morning, Shilpa took to her social media handle and dropped a video from the sets of Super Dancer Chapter 5. In the clip, Shilpa was seen wishing everyone on Independence Day as she was also joined by her co-judges Geeta Kapur and Marzi Pestonji. The three, along with the contestants on the show, also cheered 'Jai Hind' in the video. In the caption of her post, Shilpa also wrote, 'Saare Jahan Se Accha, Hindustan Hamara". Shilpa Shetty, Raj Kundra Accused Of Cheating On Thursday, Shilpa Shetty and her husband Raj Kundra were booked by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for allegedly cheating a Mumbai-based businessman of Rs 60.4 crore in connection with a loan-cum-investment deal. Another unknown person was also charged in connection with the incident. The complainant, Deepak Kothari, has alleged that the couple defrauded him of over Rs 60 crore, which involved Shetty and Kundra's now-defunct company, Best Deal TV Pvt Ltd. According to Kothari, he invested the amount between 2015 and 2023 under the pretext of expanding a business, but the money was allegedly misused for personal expenses. EOW is now investigating the case. Shilpa Shetty, Raj Kundra Call Allegations 'Baseless' After the complaint, Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra's lawyer denied the allegations, saying they were purely civil in nature and had been adjudicated by the NCLT Mumbai on October 4, 2024. 'This is an old transaction, wherein the company went into financial distress and eventually got entangled in a long legal battle at the NCLT. There is no criminality involved, and our auditors have submitted all the necessary supporting documents from time to time, as requested by the EOW, including detailed cash flow statements," said advocate Prashant Patil. 'The investment agreement in question is purely in the nature of an equity investment. The company has already received a liquidation order, which has also been placed before the police department. The concerned Charter accounts have visited the police station for the last one year for more than 15 times with all the evidence supporting the claims of my clients," the lawyer added. Patil called the case 'baseless and malicious", which was aimed at maligning Kundra and Shetty. He also said appropriate action is being initiated from their side against the perpetrators. First Published: August 15, 2025, 12:16 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
