11 Oct 2026

Three more detained over killing of LGBTQ+ creator Mad Sandhu

Gujarat police have announced further detentions and a handover to Punjab Police. The latest account includes allegations about reconnaissance before the 3 October shooting.

A street in Amritsar, India, photographed on 12 January 2010. Archive image illustrating the city where Sandhu was killed; not the crime scene, the Vapi detentions or people connected with this case. Photo: “Street in Amritsar” by Paul Simpson / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0. Cropped and resized.

Three more men have been detained in Gujarat in connection with the killing of makeup artist and LGBTQ+ creator Mad Sandhu, according to a police announcement reported on 11 October.

The Gujarat Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) said Harsimranjit Singh, also known as Simu Singga, Fateh Singh and Arman Singh were detained on 10 October in Vapi, in Valsad district.

What is the new development?

PTI reported that senior Punjab police officials had shared information with the Gujarat ATS. Investigators traced the three men to Vapi and passed their details to the Valsad Special Operations Group, which detained them.

The ATS said questioning yielded information about their alleged roles, including reconnaissance before the shooting. IANS also reported that account. These are investigative claims, rather than findings of guilt.

According to the ATS account carried by both agencies, a Punjab Police team took custody of the three men at the Gujarat ATS office on 10 October for further legal proceedings.

The new announcement follows the six arrests announced by Amritsar police on 8 October, covered in our earlier report.

The questions that remain

Sandhu was shot dead on Loharka Road in Amritsar on 3 October. The latest police account does not establish the complete motive or prove who ordered the attack.

His family’s account of earlier threats remains part of the background. In its 5 October reporting, The Indian Express quoted his father, Bhupinder Singh, saying Sandhu had sought police protection. That account raises questions about the response to threats; it does not establish police wrongdoing.

What information should police make public as this investigation progresses, while protecting a fair trial? Share your view in the comments.