Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has warned against the growing normalisation of intimidation tactics by private security services, raising concerns about what it described as a “disturbing trend” of aggression under the guise of so-called “bouncers”.
The court made the unprecedented observation on 29 April while granting anticipatory pre-arrest bail to Taranjeet Singh, a man accused of running an unlicensed security outfit named Fateh Bouncer Security Group. The order was made public Wednesday.
The court flagged the emergence of a culture where individuals, under the cloak of “bouncers” adopt a “terrorising and bullying role” and presume themselves to be above the law.
“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 armor 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.
Justice Anoop Chitkara said the term “bouncer” was intended to invoke “fear, anxiety and social terror”, adding that such roles are increasingly stripping individuals of their humanity, turning them into “robotic” enforcers, often without legal restraint or accountability.
The judge’s remarks went beyond the legal merits of the case, touching upon larger sociological and ethical concerns.
The case stems from a March 2024 FIR lodged at Samrala Police Station in Ludhiana’s Khanna district, accusing Taranjeet Singh and his associate, Roshan Lal, of defamation, criminal intimidation, cheating and violations under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which is connected with publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
The complainant, Jagvir Singh, who runs the licensed Jass Security Khanna Agency, alleged that the duo threatened him with dire consequences, defamed his business on social media platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram, and operated an illegal security agency without government approval.
In a detailed order, Justice Chitkara granted anticipatory bail to Taranjeet Singh, noting that the police had ample opportunity to arrest him since the FIR’s registration but failed to do so, unlike the co-accused Roshan Lal, who was arrested on 23 April 2024.
The court reasoned that custodial interrogation was neither required nor justified at this stage, emphasising that pretrial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.
The bail is conditional on Taranjeet Singh joining the investigation and appearing in court as directed.
However, the court’s most striking observations were reserved for the broader issue of the “bouncer” phenomenon.
Quoting dictionaries like Merriam-Webster, Oxford and Cambridge, the judge highlighted that a “bouncer” is typically someone employed to eject disorderly persons from public places.
Yet, in practice, the term has taken on a menacing connotation, with security personnel adopting a “terrorising and bullying role” under the guise of their job description.
The court criticised the passive endorsement of this term by the state, accusing it of remaining “unperturbed, unconcerned, and insensitive” to the issue.
Justice Chitkara underscored that the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, and the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007, define security personnel as “private security guards”, with no reference to “bouncers”.
The act aims to regulate private security services to ensure safety and respect, not to enable intimidation.
The court expressed alarm at how the term “bouncer” is used to “invoke fear, anxiety, and terror” in the public mind, reducing trained security guards to enforcers who operate through confrontation rather than civil dialogue.
The order also highlighted the societal implications of this trend, noting that such practices demean the dignity of security personnel, casting them as “slaves working on the whims and commands of their master”.
The court called on the state to reconsider allowing security agencies to use the term “bouncer”, urging measures to ensure that security guards view their roles with “respect, dignity, and responsibility” rather than as opportunities to wield unwarranted muscle power.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: How a procedural lapse led to acquittal of Haryana doctor-couple in a 19-yr-old PNDT Act case