‘Inherently dangerous’: Punjab and Haryana High Court denies bail to man after 3 died travelling on bus roof

The order added that such conduct, if proved, may attract ingredients beyond mere negligence.

Case of bus journey and three lost lives

The petitioner, Jgseer Singh, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Snahita (BNSS), 2023. The case originated from an FIR on October 7, 2025, at the Maqboolpura police station, Amritsar, following a statement by the bus driver.

Justice Mandeep Pannu heard the matter on April 1.

The FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant, Amritpal Singh, who stated that he was driving a bus. It is alleged that the petitioner, who was also connected with the said vehicle, allowed certain passengers to travel on the roof of the bus due to the non-availability of seats.

While the bus was returning, the passengers sitting on the roof struck against a bridge near Alpha One Mall, Amritsar, resulting in the death of three persons and injuries to another.

Following this, the petititoner was arrested on November 19, 2025, and is presently in custody.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rhythem Bajaj submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

He further argued that the petitioner has been in custody for the last about four months, and even though the charges have not yet been framed, the trial is likely to take considerable time.

State’s stand

Representing the state, an additional advocate general, Hardeep Hans, opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, involving the loss of three human lives.

It is contended that the petitioner, being responsible for the vehicle, knowingly permitted passengers to travel on the roof, thereby endangering human life.

It is further submitted that the negligence on the part of the petitioner is grave and has resulted in multiple fatalities. Hr also argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may influence the prosecution witnesses.

Culpable homicide v causing death by negligence

• At this stage, it cannot be conclusively determined whether the act of the petitioner would fall strictly within the ambit of Section 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) IPC or be confined to Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) IPC, as the same would depend upon the appreciation of evidence to be led during trial.
• The distinction between culpable homicide and rash and negligent act involves examination of the degree of knowledge and intention attributable to the accused, which is a matter to be adjudicated upon after the evidence is brought on record.
• The allegations in the present case are grave, as three persons have lost their lives and one has sustained injuries.
• The charges are yet to be framed, and the complainant is yet to be examined.
  At this stage, releasing the petitioner on bail may prejudice the prosecution’s case.
  The nature of allegations, the manner in which the occurrence took place, and the resultant fatalities do not persuade this court to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.