Public shaming of alleged thieves ‘Taliban-style punishment’: Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the act of hanging placards around the necks of alleged thieves, blackening their faces, parading them in public, and making their video viral amounted to a “Taliban-style punishment”. The assertion came as the bench of Justice Namit Kumar dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of factory owner Parvinder Singh. He, along with the co-accused, was facing allegations of subjecting his employees, including minors and women, to public humiliation over alleged theft.
Justice Kumar observed that the accused and his co-accused had taken the law into their own hands, inflicting degrading treatment that could permanently tarnish the victims’ social image and future prospects. “This act is not an acceptable human act by any stretch of imagination rather it was an act of ‘Taliban-style punishment’ by taking the law in their own hands and not realising that such an act may affect and tarnish the social image of the victims, out of whom some are girls and even minor.”
The incident came to light after a video went viral on social media, showing three girls, an elderly woman, and a boy with blackened faces and white placards around their necks reading, “I am a thief, I confess my guilt". The victims, all workers at a factory in Ludhiana, were allegedly paraded in the streets after they were accused of stealing clothes by the owner.
Rejecting the pre-arrest bail plea, Justice Kumar asserted that the act might also “spoil their future by lowering their reputation and image before the society at large, which is a serious concern”. Referring to the need for custodial interrogation, the bench asserted that crucial evidence, including the mobile phone of the accused and the factory’s NVR/DVR, was yet to be recovered.
“The investigation is at initial stage and the petitioner is evading the process of law. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the offense, no ground is made out to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as his custodial interrogation is required for recovery of his mobile phone and NVR/DVR installed in his factory. If he is granted anticipatory bail, as prayed at this stage, he may influence or intimidate the witnesses and destroy the evidence,” Justice Kumar added.
Before parting with the order, Justice Kumar observed that an Additional Sessions Judge had previously denied bail to the accused after noting that one of the victims was a minor and an application had been moved to add charges under the POCSO Act.
“If the petitioner chooses to surrender before the trial court within 10 days from today and moves an appropriate application seeking regular bail, the trial court in such eventuality shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible,” Justice Kumar concluded.
