Love Triangle Turns Violent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in Iron Rod & Firing Attack That Led to Victim’s Leg Amputation
Case Name: Jasvir Singh @ Happy v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 20 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-38115-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where an accused is specifically named in the FIR, attributed active participation in an unlawful assembly, and the assault results in grievous injuries including amputation of the victim’s limb, the gravity of allegations outweighs the plea of prolonged custody. The Court reiterated that factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and antecedents must be weighed while considering bail under Section 483 BNSS.
Summary: The petitioner filed a second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 180 dated 14.08.2024 registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Patran, District Patiala . His earlier bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn.
As per the complainant Amandeep Singh, he had prior relations with co-accused Gurpreet Kaur, which later turned sour. On 13.08.2024, upon her call, he reached the spot in his car where he was allegedly attacked by Gurpreet Kaur, Golu, and other associates. He was surrounded, beaten with iron rods, and his vehicle was vandalized. Subsequently, additional assailants arrived in a Scorpio vehicle. The petitioner was specifically alleged to have emerged armed with an iron rod, while co-accused Nikhil Ragda carried a pistol and fired a shot, injuring another person present at the scene .
The complainant sustained multiple injuries, and due to the severity of the assault, his right leg was amputated. During investigation, the petitioner and co-accused were arrested on 16.08.2024. They allegedly suffered disclosure statements and got recovered a .32 bore revolver with live cartridges and an iron rod. Investigation stood completed .
The petitioner argued false implication, absence from CCTV footage, and that recovery was planted. It was contended that the trial would take time and further incarceration would serve no purpose.
Opposing the plea, the State and complainant submitted that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR, linked through CCTV evidence of the vehicle used, and was involved in prior criminal cases, including one for abetment to murder. It was further argued that there was apprehension of absconding or influencing witnesses.
The Court observed that the petitioner was allegedly part of an unlawful assembly and actively participated in the assault in furtherance of the common object. The injuries suffered by the victim were grave, culminating in amputation. The Court noted that material witnesses were yet to be examined and that seriousness of accusations and antecedents could not be ignored.
Balancing the relevant considerations, the Court held that no compelling ground was made out for grant of bail at this stage .
Decision: The petition for regular bail was dismissed. The Court clarified that observations made in the order shall not influence the merits of the trial .