No Bail for Taliban-Style Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail to Factory Owner

Public Humiliation of Workers by Parading Them With Blackened Faces Is a Gross Violation of Human Dignity - Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Parvinder Singh, a factory owner accused of publicly shaming his workers by blackening their faces and parading them with placards calling them thieves. The Court, describing the incident as a "Taliban-style punishment," held that such an act was inhumane and unacceptable in a civilized society.

Dismissing CRM-M-11149-2025, the Court ruled, "Taking the law into one’s own hands and subjecting individuals—especially young girls and a minor—to such humiliation tarnishes their dignity and social standing. Such an act is a serious concern and cannot be condoned."

"Factory Owner Accused of Publicly Shaming Workers—Allegations of Video Going Viral on Social Media"
The case arose from an FIR No. 8 dated January 22, 2025, registered at Police Station, Ludhiana, under Sections 127, 356, 74, 75, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant, Lady Sub-Inspector Sunita Kaur, alleged that a viral video on social media showed three girls, an elderly woman, and a young boy with blackened faces, paraded through the streets of Ludhiana with white placards around their necks reading: ‘I am a thief, I confess my guilt.’ The police investigation revealed that Parvinder Singh, the owner of Deep Collection Factory, along with Manager Manpreet Singh and worker Mohammad Muskan Raza, were responsible for this act, accusing the workers of stealing clothes from the factory.

Parvinder Singh approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated and that most of the offenses were bailable. He further submitted that two co-accused had already been granted regular bail and that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

"Custodial Interrogation Required—Court Finds Bail Would Allow Evidence Tampering"
Opposing the plea, the State of Punjab, represented by Assistant Advocate General Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, contended that the petitioner was the mastermind and had orchestrated the entire incident. The prosecution emphasized that:

"The petitioner’s mobile phone and the NVR/DVR installed in his factory, which may contain crucial video evidence, are yet to be recovered. Granting bail at this stage would allow the accused to tamper with evidence and intimidate witnesses."

The Court took note of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana’s earlier order denying bail, which had highlighted that one of the victims was a minor and that a request had been made to add charges under the POCSO Act.

Rejecting the bail plea, the Court held, "The allegations against the petitioner are serious, involving the public shaming and social humiliation of vulnerable individuals. His custodial interrogation is necessary for recovering electronic evidence and ensuring a fair investigation."

"High Court Criticizes Dehumanizing Punishment—Denounces Vigilante Justice"
The Court strongly condemned the actions of the accused, calling it a "barbaric act that severely impacts the victims' dignity and future." It observed,

"Hanging placards around people’s necks and branding them as thieves in public is a gross violation of human rights. Such actions inflict long-lasting trauma, particularly on young girls and minors, and cannot be justified under any circumstances."

The judgment emphasized that such acts undermine the rule of law and amount to vigilante justice, stating, "In a democratic society governed by law, no individual has the right to punish another outside the legal framework. Resorting to public humiliation as a form of punishment is utterly unacceptable."

"Bail Denied, But Court Allows Surrender Option"
While rejecting the pre-arrest bail, the Court provided a limited concession, stating that if the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within ten days, he may apply for regular bail, which shall be considered on its merits.

Concluding the judgment, the Court held, "Given the gravity of the offense and the stage of the investigation, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. However, if the petitioner chooses to surrender and applies for regular bail, the trial court shall decide the same in accordance with the law."
This ruling establishes a strong precedent against extrajudicial punishments, reinforcing that:
•    Public humiliation and social shaming of accused individuals are unacceptable in a civilized society.
•    Vigilante justice cannot replace due process, and legal action must follow established procedures.
•    The seriousness of the offense and the potential for evidence tampering are key considerations in denying bail.
By denouncing the inhumane treatment of workers and emphasizing the need for lawful procedures, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that justice must be pursued within the framework of law, not through public humiliation and mob-like punishment.
 

Date of Decision: 12 March 2025