20-05-2025
Punjab and Haryana High Court flags ‘bouncer' menace in Punjab, says it's spreading fear
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a case involving an unlicensed private security agency, even as it raised alarm over the growing 'bouncer' culture in Punjab.
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While noting that Taranjeet Singh had earlier withdrawn a bail plea due to an undisclosed past FIR under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, the court held there was no need for custodial interrogation.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.'
