Latest news with #AnoopChitkara
The Hindu
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Army officer assault case: Prime duty of police not to instil fear, says Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismisses anticipatory bail of accused police official
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday (May 23, 2025) dismissed the anticipatory bail application of one of the twelve accused, who allegedly assaulted an Army officer and his son in March this year in Punjab's Patiala over a parking dispute. Dismissing bail to the petitioner, Justice Anoop Chitkara in his order on May 23, said 'The prime duty of the police is not to instil fear in the minds of public using unwarranted force but to secure observance of law and order and to bring that goal to fruition, a pre-requisite is adherence to and respect for legal framework itself. It is common knowledge that the majority of the people, especially the poor, downtrodden, and illiterate, have been deeply conditioned to be afraid of the police, harbouring a fear of them in the hearts of hearts. It is behaviour like that as seen in the present case, exhibited by a thin minority of officials, which inspires such fear and terror and is exemplary of incidents fuelling such narratives. On the contrary, the purpose of the police force is to impartially, without fear or favour, and without biases, take care of its people, with sensitivity, affection, empathy and kindness on the one hand; while being firm, honest and astute on the other, using reasonable force when it is inevitable to control hooliganism and criminality.' Also Read | Congress seeks arrest of Punjab Police personnel who assaulted an army officer in Patiala Inspector Ronnie Singh, who was among others suspended and booked under cognisable and non-bailable sections including 109, 310, 115(2), 117(1), 117(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in the case had approached the High Court for anticipatory bail. The incident occurred on the intervening night of March 13-14, in which Colonel Pushpinder Bath and his son were allegedly assaulted by police officials. Notably, the FIR was registered days after public outrage. Later, the High Court handed over the case from the Punjab Police to a new Special Investigating Team (SIT) of Chandigarh (Union Territory) Police. Justice Chitkara added the most disturbing aspect of this incident is that the accused, well aware of their duties as serving police officers despite coming to know through the identity card of the victim that he was a colonel in the Indian army, showed zero signs to stop, snatched his Id card, intimidated him, threatened his life and continued to unsparingly beat him. 'Such conduct of the police team in brutally beating an individual, even after being made aware that he was a serving member of the armed forces, reflects the mindset of some of the police officers in this part of the country. We must not forget so early that this region is closer to a hostile border, has a history of militancy, and is still battling cross-border narcoterrorism,' he said. 'A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for anticipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not justify anticipatory bail,' read the order.
India Today
21-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Use of term 'bouncer' intended to invoke fear, terror in public mind: High Court
Expressing concern over the use of the term "bouncer" by private security agencies for their workers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that it is intended to invoke "fear, anxiety, and terror in the minds of the public", which is "impermissible" in any civilised also observed that the primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful space, but when these employers or employees become "miscreants", assuming themselves to be extra-constitutional authorities, using threats and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for the high court was hearing a plea seeking anticipatory bail filed by a person running a private security agency. During the hearing, a single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that the paramount concern for the court was the use of the term "bouncer" in the name of the security agency run by the bench referred to a "disturbing trend", wherein a particular segment of employers and employees, under the guise of a simple job description "bouncer", have started adopting a "terrorising and bullying role".It observed that they were 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".The court said the state is also aware of how the term "bouncer'" is being used by the security agencies to throw around their weight and exert their influence, but it chooses to remain "unperturbed, unconcerned, and, therefore, insensitive towards such an issue".advertisementThe court also cited the definition of the term "bouncer" found in dictionaries."According to Merriam-Webster, 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 a nightclub."The Cambridge Dictionary describes a bouncer as someone whose job is to stand outside a bar, party, etc., and either stop people who cause trouble from coming in or force them to leave," the court objective of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, is to provide for the regulation of private security agencies and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, it would be relevant to refer to the definitions of "private security agency" and "private security guard" from the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, which does not refer to security guards as "bouncers", the court also said that security agencies have to employ security guards as per the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, and also according to the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007, in the state of Punjab."The primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful hotels and bars, their job is to curtail disruptive conduct, respectfully stop uninvited people, and remove unruly people while respecting their boundaries and without compromising their dignity," the court said."They are hired because they are trained in rapid emergency responses, skilled at being hyper-vigilant in monitoring, controlling, and reporting any nuisance, threat, or criminal activity to the police or concerned authorities, and de-escalating potentially volatile situations to ascertain the well-being, safety, and security of those around," it observed."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 the society," the court bench also said 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 mind of the public and to intimidate others."This, in any civilised setup, is impermissible, even for the state, especially in a democratic setup, and it is demeaning in the sense that it reflexively strips off any empathetic or humanistic qualities found in a person, leaving behind a degraded, damaged, negative, and robotic connotation, akin to slaves working on the whims and commands of their masters," it court also said that it reduces the respectable role of a trained security guard to that of an enforcer, who operates through confrontation and intimidation rather than respectful civil agents or employees with their varied roles, titles, and descriptions including 'bouncers', are not above law or other human beings and are certainly not the enforcers of the law, it said."The concern is the passive endorsement of the term 'bouncer' by the state or the executive, being oblivious as to what it has started to represent."It is beyond comprehension how the identity of a particular section of employees or workers can so restrictively be permitted by the state to be defined, named, or termed as a 'bouncer'," the court judge also said that the role this court has assigned to itself is to sensitise the executive, and 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 or personnel associate their respective roles with respect, dignity and responsibility. advertisement
