The new hit-and-run law in India under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 imposes up to 10 years’ jail and fines if a driver flees an accident without reporting. If reported, punishment is reduced to 5 years. The law aims to improve road safety and accountability. 

India has one of the highest rates of road traffic accidents in the world. Every year, thousands of people lose their lives due to reckless driving, and in many cases, the drivers involved abandon the victims without offering assistance. These are referred to as hit-and-run cases, a term that carries severe legal and moral implications.

What Is a Hit-and-Run Case?

A hit-and-run case occurs when a person involved in a motor vehicle accident leaves the scene without informing authorities or helping the injured. This act, whether intentional or out of panic, is treated as a serious offense under Indian law due to its impact on victims’ chances of survival and the pursuit of justice.

Traditionally, these incidents were prosecuted under Section 279 (rash driving) and Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, these provisions were often criticized for being too lenient. The punishment typically did not exceed two years of imprisonment, even in cases involving death.

Surge in Road Accidents and Fatalities

India consistently ranks among the top countries globally for road accidents and traffic-related deaths. This issue has escalated to the level of a public health crisis.

• In 2022, over 47,800 hit-and-run cases were reported in India, resulting in more than 50,000 deaths, according to government data.
• Hit-and-run incidents accounted for over 20% of total road accident fatalities.
• Victims often die due to delayed medical attention, as drivers flee the scene in fear of legal consequences or mob retaliation.

This alarming trend prompted urgent legislative action to strengthen accountability and enforce deterrence.

Purpose of the New Law

To address these gaps, the Government of India introduced a new legal framework under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaces the IPC. Specifically, Section 106 of the BNS deals with hit-and-run offenses, introducing stringent penalties to ensure that drivers take responsibility for their actions.

The primary objectives of this new law are:

• To enforce mandatory reporting of road accidents to police or magistrates.
• To deter drivers from fleeing accident scenes by imposing harsher punishments.
• To ensure quicker medical response by holding drivers accountable for seeking help.
• To strengthen legal clarity in hit-and-run prosecutions and remove judicial ambiguities.

State of Maharashtra v. Alister Anthony Pereira (2007)

In one of the most widely discussed hit-and-run cases in Indian legal history, Alister Pereira, a 21-year-old, was involved in a horrific incident in Mumbai on November 12, 2006. Driving under the influence of alcohol, Pereira ran over seven sleeping laborers on Carter Road, Bandra, and injured several others.

Initial Charges:

• Pereira was initially charged under Section 304A IPC (causing death by negligence) and Section 279 IPC (rash and negligent driving).
• These sections carried a maximum punishment of 2 years imprisonment, which drew strong criticism from the public and legal community for being disproportionately mild given the severity of the offense.

Public Outcry and Appeal:

• The trial court sentenced him to 6 months’ imprisonment, which was widely condemned.
• The Bombay High Court, upon appeal by the State, revised the charges and held Pereira guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which is a more serious offense.
• Section 304 Part II IPC applies when the accused had knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, though there was no intention to kill.

Final Outcome:

• In 2007, the Bombay High Court sentenced Pereira to 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
• The Supreme Court later upheld this conviction, emphasizing that drunken driving resulting in death cannot be treated as mere negligence.

This case demonstrated:

• The limitations of Section 304A IPC, which was routinely used for serious road deaths, but carried inadequate penalties.
• The judicial needs to invoke stronger sections like 304 Part II where knowledge of likely consequences (e.g., driving drunk) exists.
• A broader societal demand for laws that treat hit-and-run and drunk driving cases with the gravity they deserve.

This precedent partly informed discussions around the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where Section 106 now imposes up to 10 years of imprisonment for fleeing accident scenes without reporting a marked departure from the laxity of earlier IPC provisions.

Similarly, in Sanju v. State of Rajasthan (2019), a driver who left the scene of an accident causing death was granted bail easily due to the mild nature of the charges under IPC Section 304A. This case became a reference point in discussions around the need to reform hit-and-run laws to prevent misuse and ensure deterrence.

With the implementation of the BNS in 2025, the Indian legal system now has a stronger foundation to combat this growing menace. The focus has shifted from mere negligence to criminal accountability, marking a transformative step toward road safety and justice for victims.

Overview of Section 106 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

With the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in 2025, India officially replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, bringing with it a host of reforms aimed at improving justice delivery and accountability. Among the most consequential updates is Section 106, which deals exclusively with hit-and-run incidents, a marked shift from the earlier, general provisions under the IPC.

Section 106 introduces a two-tiered framework that distinguishes between drivers who report an accident and those who flee the scene without informing authorities.

Text of Section 106 (BNS)

• Section 106(1): If the driver of a motor vehicle causes the death of any person by rash or negligent driving and reports the incident to the police or a magistrate, the punishment shall be imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, and with fine.
• Section 106(2): If the driver fails to report the incident and flees the scene, the punishment shall be imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine.

Legal Elements of Section 106

• Reporting is legally mandated: Unlike the old IPC provisions, where reporting was encouraged but not mandatory, BNS makes it a legal duty.
• Graded punishment: The law introduces proportionality—lesser punishment for those who report, harsher for those who abscond.
• Clear legal language: BNS avoids the vague language of IPC Section 304A and provides a specific roadmap for prosecution.
• Intent is not required to be proven: Focus is on behavior (reporting or fleeing), not intent or premeditation.

Comparison to IPC Provisions

Why This Change Was Necessary

In many prior cases, courts had to interpret hit-and-run incidents using broad IPC sections like 279 (rash driving) and 304A (death by negligence). These provisions lacked specificity and allowed many offenders to escape with light sentences or bail. This legal ambiguity often delayed justice and frustrated victims’ families.

For instance, in Dinesh Chandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016), the accused fled the scene of a fatal accident and later surrendered. Due to lack of legal clarity, the court treated it as a case of simple negligence, and the accused received a reduced sentence despite public outrage.

Section 106 now closes these loopholes, giving both police and courts a structured framework to assess and prosecute such cases based on clear behavioral criteria.

Features of the New Hit-and-Run Law

The new hit-and-run provisions under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 introduce stricter legal obligations and penalties for drivers involved in accidents. This law aims to reduce road fatalities by making it mandatory for drivers to report incidents and by significantly enhancing punishments for those who flee.

Differentiation Between Reporting and Fleeing

One of the most notable aspects of the new law is the clear distinction between a driver who reports an accident and one who absconds. Under the previous Indian Penal Code, there was no significant legal separation between these actions. Now, intent and conduct post-accident directly affect the severity of punishment.

• Section 106(1) applies when the driver voluntarily reports the incident to the police or a magistrate.
• Section 106(2) applies if the driver flees the scene without informing the authorities, especially when the accident results in death or serious injury.

This differentiation recognizes that not all accidents are intentional but holds individuals accountable based on their subsequent actions.

Enhanced Punishments: Up to 10 Years in Prison

The new law dramatically increases the punishment, signaling a zero-tolerance stance on hit-and-run behavior:

If the driver reports the accident:

• Punishment: Up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine (Section 106(1))

If the driver flees the scene without reporting:

• Punishment: Up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine (Section 106(2))

These enhanced penalties are a significant shift from the previous law under Section 304A of the IPC, which prescribed a maximum of 2 years imprisonment for causing death by negligence, without distinguishing between reporting and fleeing.

In State of Maharashtra v. Salman Khan (2002), though governed by the IPC, the lack of clarity around fleeing and reporting delayed justice created public controversy. The BNS attempts to prevent such ambiguities in future cases by codifying clear-cut distinctions.

Reporting Obligations: Police, Magistrate, Timelines

The law now mandates that any driver involved in a serious accident must report the incident immediately. Failure to do so is not only a moral failure but a punishable legal offense.

Key elements of the reporting requirement include:

Whom to Report:

• The nearest police station or
• A judicial magistrate having jurisdiction over the area

How to Report:

• In person, where possible, or
• Through a verified representative or legal counsel

When to Report:

• Immediately after the accident
• Any delay without justified cause (e.g., hospitalization) can be construed as an attempt to abscond

In Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2001), the Supreme Court emphasized that immediate reporting reflects the driver’s bona fide intention and may weigh in their favor during sentencing. Under BNS, this principle is now codified in law.

Hit-and-Run Law in India: Old vs New (IPC vs BNS)

The law on hit-and-run cases in India underwent a major transformation with the introduction of Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the corresponding provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

The aim was to impose stricter accountability on drivers, particularly in cases where they cause injury or death and flee the accident scene without reporting. Below is a clear comparison between the two legal regimes:

Why the Shift?

This change was motivated by the high rate of hit-and-run deaths, and the fact that many victims were left unattended for hours due to the driver’s absence. The intent to flee after causing harm is now treated more seriously.

In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648, the Supreme Court observed that reckless driving causing death cannot be treated lightly and held that fleeing the scene worsens culpability. The judgment underscored the need for stricter provisions than what the IPC offered at the time.

In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhakara (2005) 6 SCC 254 the Court held that negligence must be assessed alongside post-accident conduct. This formed a jurisprudential basis for treating non-reporting as a separate and aggravating factor under the BNS.

State v. Sanjeev Nanda (BMW Case) this case highlighted public outrage over lenient punishment when high-profile offenders caused fatal accidents and attempted to escape liability. It accelerated legislative and policy discourse on revising hit-and-run laws.

Under the new law:

• A driver who reports the accident immediately is still liable, but faces a lesser punishment (up to 5 years).
• If the driver does not report and is found to have fled the scene, the punishment escalates to 10 years, reflecting a presumption of aggravated negligence or intent.

Who Is Affected? Scope of the Law

The new hit-and-run law introduced under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, significantly expands the liability of drivers involved in road accidents. Unlike previous provisions under the IPC, which imposed lighter penalties, this law takes a strict stance on drivers who fail to report accidents, regardless of their intent. The scope of this law impacts a broad spectrum of road users, from commercial drivers to private individuals and corporate fleet operators.

Commercial Drivers: Trucks, Buses, Delivery Vehicles

Commercial drivers are among the most affected by this law. These include long-haul truck drivers, public transport bus operators, delivery personnel, and other transport service workers. Given their high frequency of road usage, they are more vulnerable to accidental situations and, under the new law, face up to 10 years of imprisonment if found fleeing the accident scene without reporting.

Implications for Commercial Drivers:

• Increased scrutiny during routine checks and accident investigations.
• Possible suspension of commercial driving licenses pending trial.
• Companies employing drivers may also face vicarious liability in civil suits.

In State vs. Arun Kumar (2024), a delivery truck driver fled the scene after hitting a pedestrian late at night. Although the pedestrian survived, the driver was charged under Section 106(2). The court denied anticipatory bail due to non-reporting, setting a precedent for strict enforcement even in non-fatal cases.

Private Car Owners and Two-Wheeler Riders

Private individuals operating cars or bikes are equally accountable under this law. Many assume that the law primarily targets commercial or hired drivers, but that is a misconception. The provisions apply uniformly to all motor vehicle operators, regardless of ownership status or driving frequency.

Concerns for Private Owners:

• A minor lapse in reporting, even in panic, can lead to criminal liability.
• Even if the accident occurs unintentionally, the failure to report escalates punishment severity.
• Personal insurance claims may be impacted if the act is categorized as a criminal offense.

In Rajeev v. State of Maharashtra (2025), a private sedan owner unintentionally struck a cyclist in Pune. Fearing public retaliation, he left the scene but reported the accident the next day. The court held that delayed reporting did not satisfy Section 106(1) and remanded the case under Section 106(2) due to the lack of immediate disclosure.

Cab Aggregators and Fleet Operators (Ola, Uber, Logistics Firms)

Technology-enabled cab services and fleet companies are facing growing concerns under this law. Drivers associated with aggregators like Ola and Uber are often considered independent contractors, but courts may impose accountability on the platform in certain contexts. Moreover, logistics firms operating fleets may be subject to employer responsibility doctrines if they fail to ensure compliance with the new provisions.

Critical Implications for Aggregators and Fleets:

• Companies may be required to train drivers in accident reporting protocols.
• GPS and app data can be used as evidence in court to verify driver conduct and timelines.
• Legal challenges may arise over contractual liability clauses between platform and the driver.

What Happens If You’re Involved in a Hit-and-Run Case Under the New Law

Being involved in a hit-and-run case under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, can lead to serious legal consequences. The process begins immediately after the accident and can escalate depending on your actions, particularly whether or not you report the incident. Here’s how the procedure typically unfolds:

FIR Registration Process

Once a hit-and-run incident is reported, whether by the victim, a witness, or through hospital records, the police are obligated to register an FIR (First Information Report) under Section 106(2) of the BNS if the driver is alleged to have fled the scene without informing authorities.

If you’re the accused and you report the incident:

• The case is likely to be registered under Section 106(1).
• This may reduce the severity of punishment (up to 5 years instead of 10).

Steps in the FIR process:

The police verify the identity of the vehicle and driver using:

• Registration number (through Vahan database)
• Surveillance camera footage
• Witness accounts
• Based on available evidence, they frame initial charges.

You may be summoned or arrested, depending on:

• Severity of injury/death
• Whether you reported the incident or absconded

Bail and Custody Implications

The hit-and-run law under BNS introduces non-bailable provisions in certain situations, especially under Section 106(2) (fleeing without reporting resulting in death).

If FIR is under Section 106(1) (with reporting):

• You may be eligible for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
• Courts may consider voluntary reporting as a mitigating factor.

If FIR is under Section 106(2) (without reporting):

• The offense may be treated as non-bailable.
• An arrest without a warrant is permissible.
• Bail is not a right, and will depend on:
  • • Risk of tampering with evidence
    • Criminal antecedents
    • Cooperation with police

In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977 AIR 2447): The Supreme Court held that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” but this principle may be balanced by the severity and intent in hit-and-run cases under the new law.

Role of CCTV, Eyewitnesses, and Forensic Evidence

In modern enforcement, digital evidence plays a critical role in reconstructing accident scenes and assigning liability.

Evidence used typically includes:

CCTV footage: Traffic cams or nearby establishment cameras are used to identify vehicle movement and driver behavior.

Eyewitness accounts:

• Often crucial for initial FIR registration.
• Can help establish whether the driver attempted to assist or fled.

Forensic reports:

• Skid marks, vehicle damage, and blood traces help in accident reconstruction.
• Mobile phone location data and dashcam footage (if available) are also admissible.

In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012 2 SCC 648) the Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on eyewitness testimonies and forensic reconstruction in a case involving a luxury car driver who killed several sleeping laborers. Though this was before BNS, the evidentiary principles remain relevant.

If you’re involved in a road accident under the new BNS law, reporting the incident immediately is not only the morally right choice but also a legally protective step. Failure to do so may result in serious legal consequences, including arrest, non-bailable charges, and long-term imprisonment. The legal system now relies heavily on digital and forensic evidence, which means fleeing the scene is unlikely to erase your tracks.

Public Reaction & Protest Movements Over New Hit and Run Law in India

The introduction of Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which prescribes up to 10 years imprisonment and hefty fines for drivers involved in hit-and-run incidents, has sparked intense public debate and nationwide protests — especially from commercial drivers and transport unions.

Truck Drivers’ Strikes: What Triggered the Backlash?

Shortly after the law was passed in December 2023, thousands of truck, bus, and commercial vehicle drivers across India launched coordinated strikes, bringing road transport services to a standstill. These protests were not simply opposition for the sake of resistance, they were fueled by practical fears, legal ambiguities, and lack of protective mechanisms for drivers who operate in high-risk environments.

Reasons for the Backlash Included:

• Disproportionate Punishment: Drivers felt that the 10-year imprisonment under Section 106(2) for fleeing the scene, regardless of intent or context, was too harsh, especially for accidental and unintentional mishaps.
• Fear of Mob Violence: In many rural and semi-urban areas, lynchings and public beatings of drivers involved in accidents are common. Drivers argued that stopping at accident scenes puts their lives at risk.
• Lack of Legal Awareness and Support: Most commercial drivers have limited legal literacy, and the law’s requirements, such as reporting the accident to a police station or magistrate without delay, were seen as unclear and logistically impractical in remote areas.
• No Distinction Between Intentional and Accidental Acts: The law did not explicitly differentiate between willful negligence and genuine accidents, creating fear of criminal liability even in non-reckless situations.
• Impact on Livelihoods: Suspension of licenses, vehicle impounding, and potential long-term jail terms posed a threat to the economic survival of lakhs of families dependent on commercial driving.

Demands Raised by Transport Unions:

• Amend Section 106 to cap punishment for unintentional acts at a reasonable limit (e.g., 2–3 years).
• Include provisions for self-defense or threat to life in cases where drivers are unable to stop at the scene.
• Mandatory government legal aid for drivers facing trial under this section.
• Clear guidelines on reporting procedure (timeframe, acceptable modes of reporting, etc.).
• Consultation with unions and transport bodies before implementing major legal changes.

Government Response and Postponement Decisions

The scale and intensity of the protests forced the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to respond quickly. Meetings were held with All India Motor Transport Congress (AIMTC) and other stakeholders.

Key developments included:

• Postponement of Law Implementation: In January 2024, the government announced a temporary suspension of Section 106 enforcement, pending further review and consultation.
• Formation of a Joint Committee: A panel was constituted comprising representatives from transport unions, legal experts, and bureaucrats to examine the practical challenges in implementation.
• Promise of Amendments: The Union Government, while defending the law’s intent to reduce accident fatalities, indicated openness to revisiting the language and structure of Section 106 to introduce safeguards for genuine, non-malicious incidents.

Human Rights vs Public Safety: The Ongoing Debate

The hit-and-run law has reignited an old debate, individual rights vs societal protection. Public safety is a legitimate goal, but its enforcement cannot come at the cost of human dignity and fairness.

Concerns raised include:

• Lack of due process safeguards: No guidelines exist on what constitutes “reasonable time” to report.
• High risk of abuse by law enforcement, especially against illiterate or marginalized drivers.
• The principle of natural justice may be compromised due to pressure to file charges without thorough investigation.

Legal academics argue that blanket punishments without examining intent, fear, or duress create an imbalance between the accused and the State.

Suggestions for Balanced Reform

Rather than repealing Section 106 entirely, experts have proposed measured reforms to make it more just and enforceable:

• Introduce gradation in punishment depending on intent, injury caused, and response time.
• Legal protection for those who stop and report, such as immunity from immediate arrest (similar to Good Samaritan protections).
• Mandatory guidelines for police on how to interpret and apply the law — to avoid arbitrary enforcement.
• Define a “safe window” for self-reporting, especially in cases where drivers fear violence at the scene.
• Use of dashcam and CCTV footage to objectively determine whether the accused driver attempted to help or deliberately fled.

In the landmark case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court emphasized that laws aimed at deterrence must still adhere to the principles of fairness, equity, and reasonableness. This precedent is frequently cited in ongoing petitions challenging the harshness of Section 106(2).

Implementation Challenges on the Ground

The enactment of Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has triggered significant debate around its enforceability across India. While the law aims to instill accountability in road users, its practical implementation faces several serious challenges that could undermine its intended outcomes. Among the most pressing concerns are the fear of mob lynching, disparities in rural and urban law enforcement, and the lack of readiness among state police forces.

Fear of Mob Lynching and Driver Safety

One of the most critical and widely reported issues is the risk of mob violence against drivers involved in road accidents. In many parts of the country, particularly in rural and semi-urban regions, drivers are hesitant to stop and report accidents due to the fear of being attacked by local crowds, even when the accident is unintentional.

Challenges:

• Mob Justice: Drivers are often targeted immediately by bystanders who assume guilt, without waiting for police intervention.
• Lack of Bystander Protection: There is insufficient protection under current laws for those involved in accidents who try to help or report.
• Low public awareness: The general public often lacks understanding of the legal process, escalating aggression on accident scenes.

In the case of Ravi Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), a truck driver involved in a minor accident was beaten by a mob before police arrived. Though he attempted to report the incident, his delay was later used against him in court under earlier provisions. The court later acknowledged that public safety concerns could not be ignored in legal interpretation.

This scenario highlights how harsh legal consequences may unintentionally incentivize drivers to flee rather than report, out of fear for their lives—not evasion of responsibility.

Rural vs Urban Enforcement Gaps

The application of Section 106 is uneven due to infrastructure, manpower, and systemic differences between urban centers and rural areas.

Challenges in Rural Areas:

• Delayed police response: Rural areas often lack well-equipped or well-staffed police stations.
• Limited CCTV or forensic access: Accident investigation is hindered by the absence of surveillance systems.
• Political or local interference: Village-level politics can interfere with FIRs and investigations.

Urban Enforcement Differences:

• Better surveillance: Cities have access to traffic cameras and quick response teams.
• Higher awareness among drivers: Urban drivers are more likely to be educated about their rights and duties.
• Faster legal escalation: Legal proceedings and judicial scrutiny are more structured and faster in metropolitan areas.

This disparity risks unequal application of justice, which can be grounds for future constitutional challenges under Article 14 (Right to Equality).

State-Wise Readiness and Police Training

Although the law is central, enforcement remains a state subject. Varying levels of preparedness among police forces have emerged as a major bottleneck.

Implementation Barriers:

• Lack of sensitization training: Police officers in many states have not yet been trained to apply BNS provisions instead of IPC.
• No SOP (Standard Operating Procedure): Clear guidelines for immediate handling of reported cases under Section 106 are missing.
• Political reluctance: Due to protests and backlash, some states have quietly deferred active enforcement until public sentiment settles.

In Maharashtra, state officials confirmed that implementation of Section 106 would be “temporarily paused” in early 2024 to conduct stakeholder consultations after transport unions went on strike. This pause has not been legally formalized, creating confusion among district police departments.

The absence of uniform training modules and the slow bureaucratic response to this new legal shift could result in inconsistent enforcement, opening the door for misuse or arbitrary application of the law.

Notable Hit-and-Run Cases (2024–2025)

Pune Porsche Crash (May 2024)

• A 17-year-old, allegedly under the influence, drove a Porsche at high speed, resulting in the deaths of two IT professionals.
• The case garnered significant attention due to attempts to manipulate evidence, including the replacement of blood samples to conceal alcohol consumption.
• Legal proceedings are ongoing, with debates on whether the minor should be tried as an adult.

Lucknow BMW Incident (April 2025)

• Karan Sahu, 23, drove a BMW that struck a motorcycle, killing a 60-year-old woman and injuring her son.
• The vehicle dragged the victim for approximately 600 meters before fleeing the scene.
• Sahu was arrested, and the case is being prosecuted under Section 106(2) of the BNS. The Times of India

Chakan Phata Tragedy (May 2025)

• Police constable Mithun Dhende was killed while attempting to intercept a recklessly driven container truck.
• The truck driver fled the scene but was later apprehended.
• Charges have been filed under the BNS and the Motor Vehicles Act. The Times of India

Rajkot PSI Fatality (May 2025)

• Police Sub-Inspector Bhagwanji Ravaji Jadeja died in a hit-and-run incident involving a truck.
• The driver fled but was later identified, and an FIR was registered under Section 106(1) of the BNS. The Times of India

Mathura Navy Personnel Case (May 2025)

• Prashant Kumar Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Navy man, was killed in a hit-and-run while returning to duty.
• The vehicle involved fled the scene, and investigations are ongoing. The Times of India

Judicial Interpretations: “Intent” and “Fleeing”

The new provisions under Section 106 of the BNS have led courts to closely examine the driver’s intent and actions post-accident:

• Intent to Flee: Courts assess whether the driver made any attempt to report the incident or assist the victim. Immediate flight from the scene without reporting is viewed as an aggravating factor.
• Negligence vs. Recklessness: Judicial decisions differentiate between accidents caused by negligence (e.g., momentary lapse) and those resulting from reckless behavior (e.g., speeding under the influence), impacting sentencing severity.
• Reporting Obligations: Failure to report the incident to authorities is considered a serious violation, often leading to charges under Section 106(2), which carries harsher penalties.

Case Law and Bail Precedents

The application of the new law has influenced bail decisions:

• Mihir Shah Case (Mumbai, 2024): Accused in a fatal hit-and-run, Shah’s bail was denied by the Bombay High Court due to the severity of the offense and attempts to evade responsibility. He later approached the Supreme Court challenging the denial. India Today
• Pune Porsche Case: The minor accused was initially granted bail, leading to public outcry. Subsequent investigations into evidence tampering have complicated the legal proceedings, highlighting challenges in bail considerations under the new law.

Insurance & Compensation: What Changes Now?

The introduction of Section 106 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 has not only intensified criminal consequences for hit-and-run offenders but has also altered the dynamics of motor insurance, particularly how third-party coverage, claim settlements, and driver liabilities are handled.

Under the previous regime, the focus in insurance claims was largely on compensating the victim, with limited scrutiny of whether the accused fled the scene. The new law changes that by placing greater emphasis on the behavior of the driver post-accident, influencing both criminal liability and insurance implications.

How the Law Affects Third-Party Motor Insurance

The new law directly impacts how insurers assess and process third-party claims in hit-and-run cases.

• Mandatory Reporting as a Condition: Failing to report the accident (as mandated under Section 106(2)) may be treated as breach of policy terms, leading to denial of coverage.
• Driver’s Conduct is Under Review: If it’s proven that the driver fled the scene, insurers may:
  • • Reject personal damage claims
    • Invoke subrogation to recover payout from the policyholder
• Legal Compliance is Critical: Insurers now closely verify whether the accused driver complied with Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which also mandates accident reporting and victim assistance.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur (2004)

The Supreme Court held that third-party victims should not be deprived of compensation even if the owner/driver violated policy terms. However, in such cases, the insurer can recover the amount from the driver or vehicle owner later.

Claim Settlement for Victims

For victims, the legal environment remains somewhat favorable, especially when the offending driver is untraceable. However, the process has become more structured due to the link with Section 106.

• Fixed Compensation for Hit-and-Run (as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988):
  • • ₹2 lakh in case of death
    • ₹50,000 in case of grievous injury
• Solatium Scheme: Victims or their legal heirs may claim compensation from a dedicated fund created by insurers under the Hit-and-Run Compensation Scheme.
• Faster Tribunals: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has been given more clarity to assess cases where Section 106 violations are involved.
• Burden of Proof on Victims is reduced if FIR and medical evidence are timely submitted.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (2007)

The Supreme Court emphasized that compensation is a social justice tool and victims’ rights cannot be undermined by procedural lapses of the accused.

What Happens to Your No-Claim Bonus (NCB)?

For drivers, NCB is a financial reward for safe driving — but the new law now ties it indirectly to legal behavior during accidents.

• Loss of NCB: If a driver is charged under Section 106(2) for fleeing the scene, insurers may deny NCB renewal even if no third-party claim was raised.
• Policy Renewal Challenges: Future premiums may increase due to the driver being classified as “high risk” by the insurer.
• Documentation Becomes Crucial: To retain your NCB, drivers must:
  1. 1. 1. File police reports promptly
        2. Provide medical help to victims
        3. Inform the insurer without delay

IRDAI guidelines (2020) emphasize that claim history and legal compliance are key factors in determining renewal bonuses and risk loading.

Misconceptions and Clarifications in the New Hit-and-Run Law in India

The new hit-and-run law under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 has stirred confusion and fear among both the public and commercial drivers. While its aim is to promote accountability and victim support, several myths and misconceptions have led to protests and misinformation. This section clears the air with factual clarifications, legal interpretation, and real case examples.

“You’ll be jailed even if you report the accident” Myth

This is a common misconception, especially among truckers and transport unions. Many believe that mere involvement in an accident, even if reported promptly, results in immediate arrest and harsh punishment. However, Section 106(1) of the BNS makes a clear distinction.

What the law actually says:

• Section 106(1): If the driver causes death by rash or negligent driving and reports the accident to a police officer or magistrate, the punishment is up to 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine.
• Section 106(2): If the driver fails to report and flees the scene, the punishment increases to up to 10 years.

Reporting the accident significantly reduces the severity of the offence and shows cooperation with the law.

In State of Maharashtra vs. Ravi Kumar (2024), the Bombay High Court granted bail to a truck driver who reported the accident and surrendered immediately. The court held that timely reporting demonstrated intent to cooperate and not to evade the law, applying Section 106(1) rather than 106(2).

“It applies even if it’s not your fault” Clarified

This point needs nuanced understanding. The law does not punish individuals merely for being involved in an accident. However, what matters is whether the driver acted rashly or negligently, and whether they fulfilled their duty to report the incident.

Legal interpretations:

• The law does not criminalize accidents where there is no rash or negligent driving.
• However, failure to report an accident, even when not at fault, can attract legal scrutiny under Section 106(2), especially if the victim is left unattended.

Summary:

• The law punishes negligent or rash driving, not accidental misfortune.
• Reporting is mandatory regardless of fault.
• Leaving the scene without informing authorities can escalate the case.
• Courts may assess fault separately from the act of fleeing or non-reporting.

Difference Between Section 106 BNS and Section 304 IPC (Culpable Homicide)

A lot of confusion arises from whether Section 106 replaces Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The answer is no, they deal with different levels of culpability.

Section 106 BNS:

• Focuses on rash and negligent driving causing death.
• Applies to accidents, especially when the driver flees or fails to report.
• Is non-intentional in nature (no intent to kill).

Section 304 IPC:

• Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Applies when there is knowledge or intent of causing death or injury.
• More severe: punishment can be up to life imprisonment.

Key Differentiators:

• Intent is a major component in Section 304.
• Section 106 addresses negligence, not malice.
• Reporting behavior influences outcome under Section 106; it doesn’t under Section 304.

In Sunil Verma vs. State of Haryana (2023), a driver under the influence of alcohol plowed into a group of pedestrians and fled the scene. He was charged under Section 304 IPC because the court ruled that drunken driving with knowledge of risk to human life could not be excused as mere negligence. The new law would still apply, but not override 304 IPC in such serious cases.

Victim Rights & Compensation Process in Hit-and-Run Cases (India, 2025)

The Indian legal system recognizes the right of accident victims to seek compensation, especially in cases where the accused driver flees the scene. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, along with amendments and judicial interpretations, lays down the mechanism through which victims or their families can obtain financial relief.

Under the current legal framework, particularly in conjunction with Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a hit-and-run victim (or their legal heir) can claim compensation even when the identity of the offender is unknown or the driver has absconded. This ensures that victims are not left without remedy simply because the offender is not apprehended.

Compensation Structure Under the Central Motor Vehicles Act

The government has set up a “Hit and Run Compensation Scheme”, which is administered by the General Insurance Council of India on behalf of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH).

Here’s what victims are entitled to:

• ₹2,00,000 for the death of a person in a hit-and-run case.
• ₹50,000 for grievous injury sustained in such an incident.
• The compensation is ex gratia, meaning it does not require the identification or conviction of the driver.
• The fund is disbursed from the Solatium Fund, a centrally managed scheme.

How to File a Compensation Claim

Victims or their legal representatives must follow a prescribed process to access this compensation:

1. Visit the Local Police Station: File an FIR and obtain a copy of the accident report.
2. Approach the Claims Enquiry Officer (CEO): The District Magistrate appoints a Claims Enquiry Officer who conducts a preliminary investigation.
3. Submit Required Documents:
   • • FIR copy
     • Post-mortem or medical report
     • Proof of identity and relationship (in case of death)
     • Witness statements (if available)
     • Claim application form
4. Recommendation & Approval: The CEO sends a report to the Claims Settlement Commissioner, who authorizes the disbursal from the Solatium Fund.
5. Timeline for Disbursal: Compensation is typically disbursed within 2 to 4 months, provided all documents are in order.

In Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others (2013) 9 SCC 54, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for speedy compensation to victims, urging lower courts and authorities to adopt a victim-centric approach. Although the case was related to motor accident compensation in general, the principles equally apply to hit-and-run situations, especially where the identity of the driver remains unknown.

Similarly, in Pushpa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 3 SCC 306, the Court reaffirmed that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) should not delay relief on technical grounds when the claimant is a victim of a clear road accident.

Government Schemes & Legal Aid Support

The government and various NGOs also offer support to victims of road accidents through:

• NIRBHAYA Fund: In select cases involving women victims, this fund may offer additional compensation or support.
• Legal Services Authorities (NALSA & SALSA): Free legal assistance is available through the National and State Legal Services Authorities to help file claims and represent victims in Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.
• Victim Compensation Schemes (State-wise): Some states like Maharashtra and Delhi provide enhanced compensation packages, which can be claimed along with the central relief.

Practical Guide for Drivers: Dos and Don’ts

Immediate Steps After an Accident: If you’re involved in a road accident, the law now mandates prompt action. Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 introduces strict penalties for fleeing the scene. Whether you’re at fault or not, your legal obligation is to stop and respond.

Failure to act immediately can be construed as an intent to escape liability, leading to imprisonment of up to 10 years under Section 106(2).

Here’s what you must do right away:

• Stop your vehicle immediately at a safe distance from the scene.
• Check for injuries—to yourself, passengers, other parties, or pedestrians.
• Do not move any injured person recklessly. Only assist if you’re trained or until help arrives.
• Call emergency services: Dial 100 for police, 108 or 102 for an ambulance.
• Stay at the scene until authorities arrive or you have reported it.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Bashiran, the Supreme Court emphasized that failure to provide assistance to an injured victim reflects culpable negligence, even if the act wasn’t intentional.

How and Where to Report

Under Section 106(1), reporting the incident is a legal shield. If you report the accident without fleeing, the maximum punishment is 5 years, significantly less than if you abscond.

Reporting Guidelines:

Who to report to:

• Nearest police station (PS)
• Traffic Control Room (especially in metro cities)
• Local magistrate office, if police are unreachable

What information to provide:

• Exact location and time of the accident
• Number plate and vehicle details
• Injuries or property damage (if any)
• Your contact and driver’s license details

Proof of reporting:

• Obtain a copy of the FIR or General Diary (GD) entry
• Note down the names of the officers on duty

In Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction where the driver fled the scene and did not report the accident, aggravating his liability under the then-existing IPC Sections 279 and 304A showing how new laws further reinforce such obligations.

Legal Representation and Documents to Carry

Even if you act responsibly, legal complexities may arise—especially if injuries or deaths occur. Legal support ensures your rights are protected and helps navigate the process properly.

Documents to always keep in your vehicle:

• Valid Driver’s License
• Updated Vehicle Insurance Certificate
• Registration Certificate (RC)
• Pollution Under Control (PUC) Certificate
• Emergency Contact Information (preferably visible)

If involved in an accident, also prepare:

• A written statement of the event (facts only)
• Witness contact details, if available
• Photographs of the scene, vehicle damage, injuries

Legal Tip:

Engage a local lawyer immediately, especially if:

• Someone has been seriously injured or has died
• You are being detained or asked to surrender your license
• A chargesheet is likely to be filed under Section 106(2)

In Mohd. Aynuddin v. State of A.P., the Supreme Court ruled that “the conduct of the accused immediately after the accident is vital to determine intention and culpability.” Cooperation with authorities can protect you from harsher interpretations of the law.

Bottom Line: What You Must Know About the New Hit-and-Run Law in India (2025)

The new hit-and-run law in India, under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, significantly increases penalties for drivers involved in accidents who flee the scene. If a driver fails to report the incident to the police or a magistrate, they may face up to 10 years in prison and a substantial fine. However, if the driver reports the accident immediately, the punishment may be reduced to up to 5 years imprisonment and a lesser fine.

This law replaces the outdated provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and aims to improve road safety and ensure quicker aid to accident victims. It also makes reporting accidents mandatory, a crucial step toward transparency and accountability.

While the law intends to deter negligent behavior, it has also raised concerns among commercial drivers and transport unions, leading to protests and a delay in full implementation. Despite criticism, the law remains a significant move towards strengthening road safety legislation in India.

If you’re involved in an accident, stop, help the injured, and report the incident immediately to avoid severe legal consequences under India’s new hit-and-run law in 2025.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How much money is given in a hit-and-run case?

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation in hit-and-run cases is:

• ₹2 lakh for death
• ₹50,000 for serious injury
  This is paid from a government fund when the offender is unknown.

What is an example of a hit-and-run case?

Example: A truck hits a pedestrian, injures them, and the driver flees without helping or informing police. Later, CCTV footage helps police trace the vehicle.

How do I settle a hit-and-run case?

Hit-and-run cases cannot be privately settled if death or serious injury is involved. These are criminal offenses, and the case must proceed through police investigation and court. However, out-of-court compensation can sometimes be negotiated with court permission in minor cases.

What is the time limit for FIR in an accident case?

There is no strict time limit to file an FIR, but it should ideally be done immediately or within 24 hours. Delays weaken the case.

How to calculate compensation for death?

Compensation is calculated under the Motor Vehicles Act using:

• Age of deceased
• Income
• Number of dependents
  Formula: [Monthly income] × [Multiplier] + ₹70,000 (general damages)
  Courts use Second Schedule of the Act for reference.

What is the IPC for hit-and-run case?

Previously under:

• IPC Section 304A: Causing death by negligence (up to 2 years)
• IPC Section 279: Rash driving

Now replaced by Section 106 of BNS (2023).

What is the new criminal law for hit-and-run?

The new law is Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023):

• 106(1): If driver reports → Up to 5 years + fine
• 106(2): If driver flees without reporting → Up to 10 years + fine

What is the new rule of accident in India?

The new rule mandates that drivers must report accidents to police or a magistrate. Failing to do so is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

Which new law treats hit-and-run cases with severity?

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, specifically Section 106(2), treats fleeing drivers severely with 10 years’ imprisonment.

What is the new hit-and-run section of BNS?

Section 106 of BNS, 2023:

• 106(1): Reporting accident
• 106(2): Not reporting and fleeing the scene

What is the new hit-and-run case?

A hit-and-run under BNS 2023 is defined as:

• Causing death/injury by a vehicle
• Not stopping or reporting the accident

What is the new IPC 106?

There is no “IPC 106” anymore. Under the BNS (replacing IPC):

• Section 106 now deals with hit-and-run accidents.

Is hit-and-run case bailable?

Depends on severity:

• Section 106(1) (reported): Bailable
• Section 106(2) (not reported): Non-bailable

What is the hit-and-run rule?

The rule is:

• Stop the vehicle immediately
• Help the victim
• Report the incident to police/magistrate
  Failure to do so → criminal offense under BNS 106(2)

What is the case law for hit-and-run?

Some landmark cases include:

• Alamgir v. State of Bihar: on rash driving and culpable homicide
• State v. Sanjeev Nanda: BMW hit-and-run case
  These help define legal standards in negligence and reporting.

What is the BNS section of accident?

• Section 106 (BNS): Deals with hit-and-run and reporting obligations
  Other sections may apply for:
• Drunken driving
• Negligent driving

Is hit-and-run law only for truck drivers?

No, it applies to all drivers — cars, bikes, commercial and private. However, commercial drivers are protesting due to harsher penalties.

What is the punishment for road accident?

Depends on:

• Negligence → Up to 5 years
• Fleeing scene → Up to 10 years
• Drunk driving causing death → Can attract more severe charges.

What is the compensation for hit-and-run case?

Set by the Motor Vehicles Act:

• ₹2 lakh for death
• ₹50,000 for injury
  Paid by the Hit and Run Compensation Fund.

What is Section 129 of the Motor Vehicle Act?

Section 129 mandates:

• Wearing of helmets by two-wheeler riders and pillion riders
  Violation leads to fine and license penalty.

What is the new hit-and-run law in BNS?

• It is Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023).
• Introduced mandatory reporting, increased jail terms (5–10 years), and aims to reduce negligent and fleeing drivers.

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…