A Collision that Turned Criminal
What began as a traffic incident on a calm July afternoon in Jammu quickly escalated into a case of attempted murder. On 27 July 2025, a Mahindra Thar driven by 20-year-old Manan Anand struck a 68-year-old man riding a scooter in Gandhi Nagar. CCTV footage captured a chilling escalation: after the initial collision, the Thar reversed and ran over the injured man again before fleeing the scene. The victim was rushed to GMC Jammu and later shifted to Chandigarh for advanced treatment, reflecting the severity of his condition.
What drives a 20-year-old to crush someone not once, but twice?
From Collision to Criminality
Initially, the police registered the case under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023—pertaining to rash driving and endangering life. However, the deliberate nature of the second act compelled authorities to invoke Section 109 of the BNS, dealing with attempt to murder. The vehicle was seized, and a manhunt ensued. Manan was arrested within days of the incident, and his father, Rajinder Anand, the registered owner of the vehicle, was also taken into custody for allegedly aiding his son’s evasion.
That’s when the legal framework began to shift gears. From the legal standpoint, the case was initially registered under Section 281 and Section 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which deal with rash driving and endangering life on a public road. These apply to the first impact, when the Thar hit the scooter and caused the victim to fall.
But what changed everything was the second act — when the driver reversed and ran over the injured man again. That led police to apply a much more serious charge: attempt to murder under Section 109 of the BNS. This provision does not require the victim to die. What matters is whether the act was done with the intent or knowledge that it could cause death.
Responsibility Beyond the Driver’s Seat
The investigation is still underway. If it is proven that the accused’s father helped him avoid arrest or withheld information from the police, he too could face further charges, such as harbouring an offender or concealing evidence.
Now, with Manan in custody, attention turns to the legal process that will follow. The spotlight shifts from shock and outrage on the streets to the quiet seriousness of courtroom proceedings. As per legal process, he must be presented before a magistrate, who will decide whether he stays in custody while the investigation continues.
The Weight of Evidence and the Question of Bail
Since the charge of attempt to murder carries the possibility of life imprisonment, the police must file a charge sheet within 90 days. The case will now be heard in a Sessions Court, a reminder that this is no ordinary traffic incident, but something far more disturbing.
For now, bail appears unlikely. The law demands that courts weigh several factors — including the seriousness of the act, the chance of running away, and the risk of tampering with evidence. Manan had fled after the incident and was arrested only days later. That fact, along with CCTV footage showing what happened, weighs heavily against any immediate release.
And yet, the legal spotlight doesn’t stop with him. If the investigation shows that his father helped him hide, misled the police, or stood silent when he should have spoken, he too may face legal consequences. In such cases, silence isn’t protection — it becomes participation.
How Courts Interpret Intent
To understand how courts have dealt with similar acts, we can turn to past rulings. In multiple judgements, Indian courts have consistently held that what defines an attempt to murder is not whether the victim dies, but whether there was a clear intention or knowledge that the act could cause death.
In State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao (2003), the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the old Section 307 of the IPC. The accused had inflicted repeated injuries, and the Court ruled that when someone knowingly causes harm that could result in death, the law sees it as an attempt to murder — even if the victim survives.
A similar view was taken in R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2004), where the Court emphasized that the severity of the assault, the force used, and the victim’s vulnerability are all critical in determining the intent behind the act.
These rulings closely mirror the facts of the Jammu case. The act of reversing the vehicle over an already injured elderly man, as captured on CCTV, suggests not panic or accident but deliberate intent. The second impact changes everything — it is no longer just negligence or rage but a conscious decision to harm.
When Recklessness Crosses the Line
As the case moves toward trial, the courtroom becomes the space where evidence will meet conscience. CCTV footage, medical reports, and eyewitness testimony will shape the outcome. But beyond the facts, this case forces us to confront something deeper. When does a reckless act become a deliberate one? And how should society respond when that line is crossed?
This could mark a turning point in how Indian courts address extreme acts of road violence. The act of reversing a vehicle over an already injured man cannot be dismissed as panic. It reflects a decision — and decisions carry consequences.
This case is a reminder that a steering wheel in the wrong hands can be no different from a weapon. With great power, even in the form of a driver’s license, comes the duty to act with care, restraint, and respect for life.
The road is not a battleground. Anger is no excuse for cruelty. What we allow on our roads reflects what we are willing to tolerate as a society.
A nation is not judged by how it protects the powerful, but by how it delivers justice to the powerless. And when privilege is not matched with responsibility, it does not empower. It endangers. Sometimes, fatally.
