Law is the silent guardian of human dignity. It governs our lives, protects our rights, and most importantly, ensures that even in death, justice is not denied. When a life is lost, the law must rise to honour it. But what happens when the very system meant to protect us turns indifferent? This is not just a story of a tragic accident, it is a story of a family’s heartbreak, a system’s failure, and a nation’s urgent need for reform.

The Story of a Young Life Lost

Prahlad was the elder son of two devoted public servants, senior officers serving in the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). A promising and bright young man, Prahlad embodied the hopes of a family deeply committed to the service of the nation. On the night of August 11, 2025, their world was shattered. In a reckless and negligent road accident in Hero Honda Chowk, Gurgaon, Prahlad lost his life, leaving behind grieving parents who now find themselves not only mourning their son but also confronting a system that failed to protect him.

The Fateful Night: August 11, 2025

That night in Delhi-NCR, Prahlad was driving. Around 11:10 PM, he stopped his car at the Hero Honda Chowk, Gurgaon, intersection when the signal turned red. Without warning, a dumper truck, driven by Manoj Kumar and owned by Sandeep Kumar (proprietor of Baba Haridas Transport), rammed into his stationary car from behind. The impact was so devastating that Prahlad’s vehicle was crushed between two heavy trucks, leaving him no chance of survival.

CCTV footage later revealed a horrifying sight — the driver stepped out, assessed the wreckage with cold indifference, and walked away casually, abandoning both the vehicle and the victim. He neither reported the incident to the police nor called for an ambulance.

The following day, the police claimed to have arrested the alleged driver at 12:30 PM. However, there were no records proving that the person arrested was indeed the one behind the wheel that night. Even more disturbingly, medical tests were conducted on this unidentified individual, and authorities concluded he was not intoxicated, a claim rendered meaningless if his identity was never verified. Within 24 hours of arrest, the accused was released on bail, a shocking anomaly in a system where even minor offenders await justice for months.

“We watched the CCTV footage with our own eyes,” said Mrs. Ranjeeta Dubey (mother of the deceased). “The man who killed him didn’t stop, didn’t help—he just walked away. The next day, he walked out of jail. What kind of law allows that? What kind of justice lets a mother suffer like this?”

Further investigation revealed that the dumper truck was overloaded and illegally modified, raising questions of accountability not just for the driver but also for the transport company. The police’s lack of diligence and the hasty bail have left the bereaved parents in disbelief.

“Our son’s death was not a accident; it was a result of negligence, apathy and a system too quick to look away,” said Mr. Vijayant Verma (father of the deceased). “Our son is gone, and yet those responsible continue as if nothing happened. How do we live with that?”

The grieving parents pleaded for the inclusion of Section 106(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pertaining to causing death by negligence and escaping without reporting to be added to the chargesheet. The police refused, citing that the provision had not yet been notified by the Government of India. The irony is agonising: a law exists on paper to protect the innocent, yet it remains dormant when needed the most. This raises a critical question: must justice wait for bureaucracy? Will families like Prahlad’s continue to suffer because the law they believe in has not been “notified” yet?

The Second Blow: Fraudulent Intrusion

To add to their distress, on November 8, 2025, the family was approached by a man named N. Singh, claiming to represent Oriental Insurance Company. He later admitted to being a third-party private investigator, allegedly pressured by the truck owner to secure a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to absolve the modified dumper of liability. The documents he carried appeared to be unlawfully obtained. In such circumstances, the question remains: where do citizens turn for protection, and how can justice be ensured when safeguards themselves are compromised?

Gaps in Legal Enforcement of Hit-and-Run Cases

India continues to witness a concerning rise in hit-and-run incidents. However, Section 106(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which prescribes enhanced penalties for causing death by negligent driving and failing to report the incident, remains unenforced by the central government. The absence of notification has resulted in limited legal recourse in such cases, affecting the accountability framework for dangerous driving.

In the absence of an operational Section 106(2), legal interpretation may require reliance on the nearest applicable provision. Section 105 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita addresses culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It provides for imprisonment for life, or a term not less than five years and up to ten years, along with a fine. This applies where the act causing death is committed with the intention of causing death or bodily injury likely to result in death, or with knowledge of its likely fatal consequences, even if there is no intent to kill.

In light of the current legal framework, the absence of an operational Section 106(2) necessitates reliance on existing provisions such as Section 105 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Duty of the State – Suo Moto Intervention and Judicial Oversight

The Indian judicial system has long upheld the principle that justice must be fair, impartial, and protective of individual rights. A foundational belief within the system is that “a thousand guilty may escape, but one innocent should not be punished.” Investigations, therefore, are expected to be conducted with integrity, unbiased, honest, and strictly in accordance with the law, to ensure that the truth is presented before the court.

History has shown that tragedy can lead to reform. For instance, the Bhopal Gas Tragedy exposed significant gaps in India’s environmental laws, which at the time were limited to regulating water and air pollution. But the judiciary did not merely observe. It responded with resolve. It was the Supreme Court of India that truly transformed environmental jurisprudence. The Court did not just interpret the law, it created principles such as the Polluter Pays Principle, the Precautionary Principle and Gross Negligence, etc. The judiciary became not just a guardian of rights, but a driver of reform. It filled legislative gaps, enforced accountability, and redefined the relationship among industry, the environment, and justice.

Judicial interventions have also played a critical role in advancing public safety. In the BMW crash case, the Delhi Court questioned the inaction of medical authorities. Courts have exercised suo motu powers under Article 131 and Article 226 of the Constitution to initiate proceedings in the interest of justice. Notable examples include the Kerala High Court’s recent action in the Vadakkencherry bus accident and the Supreme Court’s recent suo moto in the matter of the Phalodi district road accident in Rajasthan.

In the context of emerging legal challenges, particularly those involving hit-and-run incidents and insurance fraud, there is a pressing need for institutional response. During the inoperative phase of Section 106(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Supreme Court and the legislature may consider issuing interim guidelines to expedite investigations and prosecutions. Additionally, regulatory bodies such as the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) may need to strengthen oversight mechanisms to prevent impersonation and malpractice.

The time for institutional inertia has passed. The legislature and the Supreme Court must act with urgency to prevent a proliferation of Public Interest Litigations across the country and to ensure that justice is not delayed by procedural gaps. It is imperative that both branches of governance rise to the occasion, issuing clear directives, enforcing accountability, and safeguarding the rights of citizens. Police and transport authorities must uphold the rule of law with diligence and impartiality. In matters of life and death, the system must not falter. Justice must not only be promised, it must be delivered, swiftly and decisively.

Upon reaching out to AK & Partners, the firm declined to comment to keep the specifics of the cases confidential. Though tight-lipped on the details, the firm acknowledged their representation in the matter.

When asked about the ongoing proceedings, Mrs. Kritika Krishnamurthy, Founding Partner at AK & Partners, said, “The family’s experience reflects how procedural gaps can weaken public trust in the justice system. While the process may at times seem slow, due process remains the surest path to justice. As lawyers, our responsibility is to ensure that it is pursued with integrity and compassion. As the matter is sub judice, we are unable to comment further.”

When asked to confirm information received from other sources on whether the firm was representing the case on a pro bono basis. Mrs. Krishnamurthy said, “We felt a deep sense of empathy when we learned of this case and chose to represent the deceased’s parents’ pro bono. No further comments, please.”

The firm also conveyed its deep respect for and unwavering faith in the Indian judicial system, affirming its belief that the courts will uphold the rule of law and ensure that justice is served with integrity and fairness.