Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra sets aside orders by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur, underlines criminal breach of trust and cheating have different ingredients

In Ranjeet Kumar Rai @ Bablu Rai vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra delivered a 17-page long judgement dated July 31, 2026, wherein, it set aside the order dated March 5, 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur in G.R. No. 739 of 2016 which arose out of V. Nagar (Vidyapatinagar) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2016 and the subsequent order dated September 10, 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur in Trial No. 1019 of 2018/G.R. No. 739 of 2016. The judgement reads:"Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, stands quashed. 21. Both the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications are, accordingly, allowed." Justice Mishra observed:"19. In the considered opinion of this Court, even if the allegations contained in the F.I.R are accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. The dispute, at its core, is essentially contractual and civil in nature, which has been sought to be given the colour of a criminal prosecution."  

Justice Mishra relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Race Club (1940) & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 wherein, it has distinguished between criminal breach of trust and cheating.  “36. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients...."

The trial court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner, and the discharge application preferred by the petitioner was rejected. 

Justice Mishra recorded that in this case, neither entrustment of property nor dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction was discernible from the allegations made in the F.I.R. The dispute, arose out of an alleged breach of contractual obligations relating to sale of a motor vehicle and does not disclose the commission of either offence. A plain reading of the First Information Report did not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 503 and 504 Indian Penal Code. Except for a bald allegation of abuse and threat, there is no material to indicate intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace as required under Section 504 Indian Penal Code, nor are the allegations sufficient to constitute criminal intimidation within the meaning of Section 503 Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 506 Indian Penal Code. The case fell squarely within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the categories where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any offence and where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or exerting pressure." 

Justice Mishra also concluded: "Continuation of the criminal proceeding, in the facts of the present case, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and would warrant interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court."

The prosecution case was that Anil Kumar Chaudhary, the opposite party No.2 (informant), being the registered owner of a Bolero Pick-up Van bearing Registration No. BR-09M-4666, alleged that on August 1, 2016 the petitioner had approached him with a proposal to purchase the said vehicle. The sale consideration was settled at Rs.4,21,000/-, whereupon the petitioner allegedly issued a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- towards part payment and agreed to pay the remaining Rs.1,71,000/- within two weeks, whereafter possession of the vehicle was delivered to him. It is further alleged that when the cheque was presented for encashment on September 30, 2016, the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, on October 5, 2016, when O.P. No.2 approached the petitioner demanding either payment of the amount or return of the vehicle, the petitioner allegedly abused and threatened him with dire consequences and refused either to return the vehicle or to make payment, further stating that he would dispose of the vehicle as scrap. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a written report was submitted by O.P. No.2 before the SHO, Vidyapatinagar Police Station, Samastipur, pursuant to which F.I.R bearing V. Nagar (Vidyapatinagar) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2016 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In Lalan Kumar v. The State of Bihar (Cr.Misc No. 37503 of 2023), the High Court has held that prosecution under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act can only be initiated by filing complaint. It was also submitted that no statutory demand notice, as mandated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was ever issued and, therefore, the very institution of criminal proceedings under the said provision is legally unsustainable. He further submitted that the Magistrate  mechanically took cognizance without due application of judicial mind and that the subsequent rejection of the discharge application also suffers from the same infirmity. It is, thus, submitted that both the impugned orders dated 05.03.2018 and 10.09.2018 be quashed along with the entire criminal proceeding.
 

Supreme Court confirms Md. Kai Ansari is a juvenile, but faces trial for voyeurism and stalking

In Md. Kaif Ansari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli passed a 3-page long order dated July 29, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"the order declaring the petitioner as juvenile stands, we confirm the interim order dated 15th October, 2025 of this Court. 7. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms."  The order was uploaded on July 31, 2026. The earlier order had recorded that on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner was a juvenile and in support thereof, he has placed on record the birth certificate and mark-sheet of the petitioner. The order stated: "In case such a plea is taken before the Court concerned, appropriate steps shall be taken for examination of that issue." It granted bail to the petitioner. 

The order was passed upon hearing the Special Leave Petition which questioned the correctness of the 3-page long order dated August 8, 2025 passed by Justice Rajiv Roy of the Patna High Court. Justice Roy had rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in connection with FIR/P.S. Case No.175 of 2022 dated May 11, 2022 registered at Police Station Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District Saharsa, Bihar for the offences under Sections 354 (C),354 (D), 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.  The senior counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the court towards the order dated  July 14, 2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa, Bihar declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile. It was submitted that it was a fit case where the interim protection already granted by the Supreme Court should continue. The necessary bail bonds have been furnished in terms of the court’s order dated October 15, 2025.  

Notably, Justice Roy had modified the paragraph 2 of his order dated August 8, 2025 on August 21, 2025  because inadvertently, instead of anticipatory bail it was recorded as regular bail. 

The prosecution story is that the informant alleged that blackmailing her daughter, the petitioner tried to make physical relationship and also created photos, videos and later allegation is that it was transferred to one of the petitioner’s neighbor, Tanvir which resulted into her life becoming miserable for the victim girl. The panchayati took place but failed and as the accused person threatened them of dire consequences, if any criminal case is lodged, left with no alternative, the FIR. 

Justice Roy had recorded: "4. In this case, earlier the co-ordinate Bench and later this Bench tried to mediate but the flip flop continued between both the petitioner and the victim lady relating to tying the nuptial knots." The senior counsel had submitted that allegation of rape was not there, attempt had been alleged. She had alleged that video was made viral but there is nothing of that sort of that was available on record and in that background, the petitioner deserved the relief.  The counsel for the informant on the other hand had opposed the prayer for bail submitting that a young girl who is a college going student, her obscene videos were made viral as a result whereof she stopped moving out of the home, her image was tarnished in the eyes of the society and all this is attributed to the petitioner.

Kaif is charged under Section 354C under IPC which deals with voyeurism. Any man who watches, captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation to this section as provided under the Act is as follows-For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably expected to provide privacy and where the victim’s genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory: or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public. Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to the third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section. This section makes a man liable if he intentionally watches or captures the picture of a woman doing private acts, which are to be performed in the utmost privacy and the woman believes that she is not observed by anyone.  If a woman gives her consent to capture her image or allows to do any act, but not with the purpose that it will be exposed to a third person and if the person shares the picture or spreads it on a wide scale, his act will amount to the offence under the purview of this section and shall be liable to punishment. The offence committed under this section is a cognizable offence and bailable at the time of first conviction. However, if the offender repeats the offence, the nature of the offence is cognizable and non-bailable at the time of second conviction. In both the cases, the offence is triable by any Magistrate having the jurisdiction of the matter. He is also charged under Section 354 D which deals with the offence of stalking. 

Justice Soni Shrivastava orders no coercive action against POCSO accused, FIR was filed afte 37 days

In Rocky Kumar @ Rauki Kumar vs. .The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Soni Shrivastava passed a 2-page long order dated July 29, 2026, wherein, she directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in a case  under Section 376(D), 506/34 of IPC, section 3(i) (r) (S) (W) (1)/3 (2) (va) SC/ST Act and section 4 of the POCSO Act against the accused petitioner Rocky Kumar. The case is listed on September 2, 2026. 

Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not sent up for trial and a final report was filed in his favour. However, during trial, summons has been issued under Section 358 of the B.N.S.S. The victim has filed the complaint after 37 days. Brajesh Kumar, the main accused is facing trial in the Court of Ravindra Kumar, District and Additional Sessions-cum-Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Sheikhpura who was in love with the victim. The petitioner had been named only because he used to study with the main accused in Biharsharif. 

Justice Shrivastava concluded:"4. In such view of the matter, issue notice to the opposite party no.2 by ordinary process as well as speed post with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed within a week from today. 5. Call for a legible copy of the case diary along with the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. from the Court of learned District and Additional Sessions-cum-Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Sheikhpura, in connection with Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No. 50 of 2023....7.In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken "against the petitioner in the aforesaid case till further orders.

The prosecution case, in brief as per the written report of the informant namely Kiran Devi is that, on August 3, 2023 at about 2 PM, when her daughter/victim was feeding cattle near her house, accused persons Brajesh Raut and Rocky Kumar on a gunpoint grabbed the informant daughter's hand with bad intention and taken her to the abandoned house of Sanjay Raut through the Bathan of Uday Raut. When informant's daughter shouted, accused persons started threatening to kill her and gagged her mouth with a Gamchha. The accused persons one by one raped the informant's daughter due to which she became unconscious. After a while when she did not return, informant went to search her and when she reached near the house of Sanjay Raut, saw that accused Brajesh Kumar and Rocky Kumar were fleeing from the house of Sanjay Raut. The informant's another daughter Priti Kumari went inside the house and saw that informant's daughter victim girl was lying half naked and unconscious. After the incident, the victim was not in a state of sound mind to speak and remained quiet. After a long period of time, she told about the incident to her family members. The case was registered after 37 days. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is quite innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. It was submitted that the petitioner bears no criminal antecedent. It was prayed that petitioner may be given benefit of pre-arrest bail. 

Legal reporting in Bihar fails Breath analyser test, reveals ignorance about Legal Metrology (General) Sixth Amendment Rules, 2025

Can Police subject all the advocates visiting courts and police stations to breath analyser test?

Patna edition of The Times of India, Dainik Bhaskar, Prabhat Khabar, Dainik Jagran, News4Nation, Deshaj Times, InsierLive, Patna Press, Live Cities, Khabar Point and Star TV Bihar published and broadcasted fake news regarding advocates of Patna High Court being drunk while making their submission before the court of Ms. Aarti Upadhyaya, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) on the Sunday night  of July 27, 2026 at the Chhajjubagh Judges’ Residence Complex hall under Kotwali police station area. The two advocates, Aakash Keshav, a practicing advocate for last 11 years  and Varti Kumar, a law graduate were arrested, detained and handcuffed on false charge of being intoxicated. Do the legal reporters of these news outlets know that Supreme Court and High Court have reiterated on several occasions that a breath analyzer test cannot be treated as final proof of alcohol consumption? Is it true that the reporters were misled and taken for a ride by one A. Pandey who had briefed them without any authorisation? Did reporters inquire about mystery around the role of two police stations in question? 

Are these legal reporters multipurpose reporters without even an iota of legal education? Without legal training how can they report about court procedure and the judicial process? The legal reporters of the media houses in question do not appear to be law graduates. Do these newspapers have the copy of the FIR which was registered against the advocates?  

Are they aware of the standard procedure required for subjecting anyone to breath analyzer test?  Did they inquire as to whether the breath-analyzer equipment was in calibrated state before the advocates were subjected to to it? Did the police officers concerned ensured that ‘Air Blank Test’ was conducted and ‘0.000’ reading shown on the instrument before subjecting the advocates to the breathalyser test for drunken driving. The primary goal of a blank test is to verify that the breathalyser is functioning correctly and is not influenced by any residual alcohol from previous tests. Therefore, it is mandatory to conduct an Air Blank Test and ensure that the calibration is at ‘zero’ before taking a breath sample using a breath alcohol testing device. The police failed to ensure that the calibration of the device showed ‘zero’ before conducting the breathalyser test. The authenticity and acceptance of the breath analyzer test is dependent on the blank test reading being at ‘0.000’ when the test was conducted. A breathalyser is a diagnostic device that measures the content of alcohol in the air a person breathes out. The purpose of conducting an Air Blank Test is to check for any residual alcohol before taking a breath sample from a person using a breath alcohol testing device. The primary purpose of an Air Blank Test is to avoid wrong results during the breathalyser test. If alcohol remains in the device from a previous test, it could falsely elevate the subsequent test result of another individual.

Contrary to the police version published in these news reports in manifest breach of the golden rule of the 5 Ws and one  H of journalism  and reporting about court proceedings, the reporters of these media groups parroted the information planted by the police without gathering all basic facts. The golden rule of the 5 Ws and one  H stands for Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. Who pertains to identifying the people, groups, or characters involved in the story in question.What explains the event, action, or core problem that took place.When establishes the time, date, or schedule of the event. Where pinpoints the physical or virtual location.Why explores the reasons, root causes, or motivations behind the situation. How provides details the method, process, and sequence. These six questions were necessary to ascertain the veracity and authenticity of the claims made by the police. The reporters failed to take the version of Advocate Aakash Keshav and Vrati Kumar, a law graduate before doing their stories and relied solely on the police version. They failed to get the version of SDJM with regard to the claims made by the junior police officials.  

Disputing the police version presented by media, the version of Advocate Aakash Keshav is as under: 

"On Sunday at around 10:00 PM, I came to know that several young adults had been arrested and were under detention. Upon receiving this information, Mr. Vrati Kumar, a lawyer-cum-social activist and also a Member of PUCL and I, first went to Rupaspur Thana, where we were informed that people were detained at Gandhi Maidan P.S. We then moved to Gandhi Maidan P.S., from where we learned that the detainees were being presented before the Magistrate at Chhajju Bagh. We therefore went to Chhajju Bagh, at the Judges' residence, whereI saw a line of detained students being made to appear before the SDJM. Many of them were injured and not physically fit, but all were being remanded without being told the specific charges against them. 

I appeared in court in my uniform as an officer of the court and, in a firm voice, asked one of the students being produced before the court for his name, which he gave to the court. I then asked him, in open court, whether he had been informed of the charges for which he was being presented, to which he answered in the negative. I then asked him whether a copy of the FIR had been provided to him, to which he again answered in the negative. I thereafter raised an objection in court that each of the detainees be provided a copy of the FIR, that whatever they stated in court be recorded — i.e., their depositions be recorded — and that the entire court proceedings also be recorded. Upon my raising this objection, several police officers and some other persons in plain clothes began objecting, whereupon I and other lawyers present objected in turn and submitted that we were making our submissions before the learned Magistrate. 

The SHO, Gandhi Maidan, then stated, very vindictively, that since he had been badly injured during the protest, everyone involved must go to jail. I once again objected and told him that I was also concerned about his injuries and had every sympathy for him, but that sending all the students into custody would not help matters. All these statements and objections made by me were heard by the learned Magistrate, but owing to the aggressive behaviour of the officers present, the argument grew heated between the officers and the advocates, following which the SHO became violent, started pushing us, and cornered us. He stated that many persons present in court were under the influence of alcohol and instructed that the doors of the premises be locked so that everyone would be confined there, and told Vrati and me, in a vindictive tone, that he would send us to prison. He then said that he would specially arrange a device for me and ensure that I was prosecuted and punished. It was an open court, and without any direction from the Magistrate, he detained us and had someone brought in a breath analyser — again without any instruction from the court. He then forced  Mr. Vrati Kumar and I to blow into the same machine, without it being inspected or a fresh mouth piece being opened in front of us and without permission being taken from the court. No blood or urine test was conducted thereafter, and we were detained solely on the basis of the breath analyser reading. 

I requested that we be presented before the Magistrate, which he refused, stating that he had the right to detain us for 24 hours and that he would take us to the police station and detain us there. He then forced us into a police car and took me to Kotwali Police Station. We were detained there the entire night, and in the morning we were handcuffed and taken to the hospital, where we were declared physically and mentally fit. From there, we were taken back to Kotwali Police Station. Upon the arrival of the SHO, Kotwali, we requested him to remove the handcuffs, but instead we were shifted to another room, away from public view. At around 2:00 PM, we were made to sit in an auto-rickshaw, still handcuffed, and taken to the Patna Civil Court premises. There, we again requested that the handcuffs be removed, as per the rules, but we were once again paraded in handcuffs within the court premises. On seeing this, many advocates gathered, and it was only under pressure from my fellow colleagues that the handcuffs were removed. We were thereafter presented before the Learned Special Judge (Excise), from where we were released on a personal bond. After our release, the police authorities released our photographs from the arrest memo to the media, and it was reported in the news media that we was drunk and had behaved badly with a lady judicial officer. 

A serious point of concern is that the lady Magistrate was harassed and sidelined by the police officer, particularly the SHO, Gandhi Maidan, who acted beyond his jurisdiction and, without the permission of the learned court, acted with malice and vendetta, and dared to remove an officer of the court for raising his voice regarding the conduct and manner in which the students were being sent into custody. A deliberate attempt is being made to tarnish our image by implicating us in an excise case."

In The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Bihar,  vs. Dharmraj Singh @ Dhamraj Singh (2026,) Patna High Court's Division Bench delivered a 10-page long judgement dated July 9, 2026, wherein, it observed: "15. So far as the breath analyzer report is concerned, its admissibility in evidence is one thing, while its probative and conclusive value stands on a different footing" before concluding that Bihar government's decisions are legally unsustainable and upheld teh judgement of the Single Judge against the respondents including the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar and the Additional Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 

In Manoj Kumar Thakur vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 4181 of 2021), in a landmark decision delivered on June 25, 2025, Justice Harish Kumar of Patna High Court, reinstated a government employee who had been dismissed based solely on a Breath Analyzer Test without corroborating blood or urine tests. Justice Kumar relied on the decision in Jawahar Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [2019(2) PLJR 156], wherein, dismissal based only on a Breath Analyser test was set aside as excessive and legally unsustainable. He also referred to  Supreme Court’s decision in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [(2013) 10 SCC 324], wherein, the Court held: “The Breath Analyzer Test, which formed the sole basis for the charge of alcohol consumption, cannot be treated as conclusive proof in the absence of a blood or urine test, which is medically and legally required to substantiate such allegations."

 

The Patna High Court has reiterated the Supreme Court's verdict that a breathalyser (breath analyzer) test cannot be considered conclusive proof of alcohol consumption. In the case of Manju Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 2590 of 2022), it has been held that breath analyzer report is not a conclusive proof of consuming liquor by a person. The Supreme Court in the case of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1971(3) SCC 930 concluded that the consumption of alcohol can only be ascertained by way of blood and urine test of a person suspected to have consumed alcohol.

 

In Manoj Murmu vs. State of Bihar Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 848 of 2023, Patna High Court set aside a conviction under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 read with Rule 18(4) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 by its judgement dated August 19, 2025. The case arose from an Excise Non-FIR No. 370 of 2022 (Katihar), where the appellant was allegedly found drunk based solely on a breath analyzer test conducted by the very officer who also acted as the informant and the investigating officer (IO). The appeal foregrounded three core questions: (i) whether the breathalyzer result alone, without blood/urine testing, could conclusively prove “consumption” for the offence under Section 37; (ii) whether the breathalyzer printout is an “electronic record” requiring mandatory certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;crystallizes three interrelated rules for prohibition prosecutions and electronic evidence. The Court has concluded that breathalyzer outputs are electronic records; without strict Section 65B certification by a competent responsible official, they are inadmissible or carry negligible probative value. Breathalyzer readings alone are not conclusive proof of “consumption” under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act; clinical corroboration (blood/urine) significantly strengthens the prosecution, and may be decisive where breath evidence is otherwise infirm. 

 

Notably, in The State of Bihar vs. Narendra Kumar Ram, Supreme Court is examining the constitutional validity of  Sections 37 and 75 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 in a case which arose from a ruling of the Patna High Court, which had quashed an FIR registered against an individual accused of consuming alcohol in violation of the State’s prohibition law. According to the case record, the individual was found at his residence in Kishanganj and subjected to a breath analyser test, which indicated an alcohol concentration of 41 mg per 100 ml. Based solely on this result, he was arrested and an FIR was registered under Section 37 of the 2016 Act.

 

Are the legal reporters who reported about the so-called drunken state of advocates aware that on November 28, 2025, the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution notified the Legal Metrology (General) Sixth Amendment Rules, 2025. It amended the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011. The amended provisions  came into effect on April 4, 2026. The amendment has introduced a new Part in the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011. 

Part XIII relates to the Evidential Breath Analyser. Evidential Breath Analysers are quantitative instruments which provide a measurement result of alcohol concentration in exhaled human breath. They are used for the purpose of establishing compliance, for fighting against alocohol abuse and advancement of public safety. These instruments are the principal means by which a definitive alcohol measurement is obtained and are considered “evidential”.  Here, alcohol will refer to ethyl alcohol or ethanol in a broader context, but, when dealing with test gas compositions, the exact chemical terminology for each substance will be applied. 

 

Breath analysers should have the following special features: prohibit the displaying or reporting of results that do not represent the final measurement result; mandating the inclusion of a printing device; prohibiting operation of the analyser when no paper is detected in the printing device; requiring further printed information in addition to the final measurement result;requiring final measurement results to be displayed and reported in terms other than the alcohol content in exhaled human breath (that is, physiological conditions such as percentage of blood or in terms of other quantities). The scope of this specification will be limited to the types of breath analysers that use mouthpieces for sampling the breath.

Schematic Description of Instrument: It provides a means for sampling and then measuring the alcohol content of a sample of end expiratory breath of a human being; It means for conveying the breath sample through the sampling system depends on the kind of alcohol sensor used in the specific EBA; Incorporated into the sampling system is an alcohol sensor which analyses the breath sample and provides signals related to the concentration of alcohol;  The sensor signals are then electrically processed to display the results of a measurement in mg/L or another prescribed SI unit; It has a means to check whether the conditions for the acceptance of a breath sample are fulfilled. 

Description of sampling and mouthpiece: A specimen of an end expiratory breath sample from a continuous and uninterrupted expiration shall be analysed for alcohol concentration and the breath sample will not be influenced by breathing techniques; It will be be capable of being used under satisfactory hygienic conditions and the use of individually packaged, replaceable mouthpieces for each measurement shall be indispensable. 
 

Measuring range: It will be from 0.00 mg/L to at least 2.00 mg/L; A higher upper limit of the measuring range will be defined by the manufacturer; It will indicate when its upper limit of measurement is exceeded with the mention of the value of the upper limit for example —result > 2 mg/L; It will fulfill the requirements of this specification for the complete specified measuring range. Masking of low results will be deactivated in the metrological test mode. The Evidential Breath Analysers will be fitted with a printing device, internal or external.
 

Parameters that will be recorded for all tests: Date and time; Ambient temperature; Ambient relative humidity; Ambient pressure; Values of the measured; Indications and errors; Functional performance;     and correct printout of the internal printer.
 

The union government has approved four types of devices for the purpose of obtaining an indication of the presence of alcohol in a person’s blood by means of a test carried out on one or more specimens of breath provided by that person for the purpose of a breath test. Breath Analysers contain three distinct parts – body, plastic mouth piece and a disposable straw to be used with mouth piece. The person who is suspected to have consumed alcohol is requested to blow into the straw. At this time the mouth of the person comes in contact with the straw of the Breath Analyser. Hence the straw should be disposed of as soon as the test is over. The same straw should not be used more than once as the use of the same straw by different persons is not desirable. 

 

A preliminary or passive test is carried by holding the instrument (breath analyzer) close to the mouth and asking name of the person or to blow which indicates consumption of alcohol (passive test). If the result is negative, no further check is required. If the result is positive, breath sample is taken using the disposable straw and the print out taken using connected printer. 

 

The legal reporters of the media houses in question do not appear to be law graduates else they would have known that breath analyzer tests are not conclusive proof? Have they been trained to report court proceedings? 

Will Courts, Bar Councils and bar associations also subject police to breath analyser test when they visit courts?    

Recently, Telangana High Court had asked the police in question as to under what authority of law he had subjected an advocate, who visited the police to inquire about a case, to breath analyser test. In Bihar too, they are likely to face similar questions in the High Court. 

 

Will Bankipur pay heed to lessons from Katha Upanishad and Nyaya Sutra?

    Reality is truth (prāma),
    and what is true is so,
    irrespective of whether we know it is,
    or are aware of that truth.

— Akṣapada Gautama's Nyaya Sutra cited by Jeaneane Fowler, Perspectives of Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Hinduism (2002), Sussex Academic Press, p. 130

The tale of a library and a club on the bank of Ganga in Bankipur has lessons which are yet to be decoded. 

The Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Bankipur was opened for public in October 1891 by Khan Bahadur Khuda Bakhsh, a native of Chhapra. The library was declared an institution of national importance by an act of Parliament in 1969.

Bankipur Club was founded in 1865 by James Patrick Willoughby Johnston, a British colonial police and intelligence officer who served extensively in the Indian Police (IP) within the Bihar and Orissa cadre. 

The library culture arrived after the arrival of club culture. 

From the earliest times, there is an unending conflict between library culture and club culture is an eternal conflict. It is the conflict between the pleasurable (preyas) and the preferable (shreyas), which is one of the subjects of the Katha Upanishad. It is the constant struggle between The Pleasant and The Good. 

In the immortal Nachileta-Yama dialogue Katha Upanishad reads:

अन्यत् श्रेयः उत अन्यत् एव प्रेयः। ते उभे नानार्थे सती पुरुषं सिनीतः। 

तयोः श्रेयः आददानस्य साधु भवति उ सः अर्थात् हीयते यः प्रेयः वृणीते ॥

श्रेयश्च प्रेयश्च मनुष्यमेतः तौ सम्परीत्य विविनक्ति धीरः ।

श्रेयो हि धीरोऽभि प्रेयसो वृणीते प्रेयो मन्दो योगक्षेमाद्वृणीते ॥

("The joy of the preferable ever abides, but not what seems pleasant to the senses. Both these, differing in their purpose, prompt humans to action. All is well for those who choose the joy of the preferable, but they miss the goal of life who prefer the pleasant. Perennial joy or passing pleasure? This is the choice one is to make always. The wise recognize these two, but not the ignorant. The first welcome what leads to abiding joy, though painful at the time. The latter run, goaded by their senses, after what seems immediate pleasure.")

The defeat of the natives in the 1757 and 1764, paved the way for the beneficial owners of British East India Company which entered India through Surat, Gujarat in the early 17th century to set up a rubber factory. The rubber was very elastic, it reached  Bengal and Bihar in mid 18th century before reaching Allahabad and Delhi. In early 19th century, the beneficial owners of the erstwhile company made Bankipur, a strategic location for the colonial State besides Danapur. The British settlement used to be in Bankipur although till the late 19th century, it was like a village. 

Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy, the legendary physician and former Chief Minister of West Bengal, was born in Bankipore, Patna, on 1 July 1882 before Bihar’s separation from Bengal in 1912. On June 30,1917, The Bihar Herald had published a satirical article criticizing the renaming of railway stations in the newly created Bihar. The fact remains renaming creates cognitive dissonance and has undecipherable cognitive costs. 

Out of five chapters, in at least two chapters of the book Provincial Metropolis: Intellectuals and The Hinterland in Colonial India (2025), published by Cambridge University Press, David Boyk dwells on the significance of Bankipur. 

The elite residents of Bankipur had played a significant role in the separation of Bihar from Bengal. The facts remains that the communities of Bengal and Bihar are communities of the same fate.  

The colonial state had developed Bankipur region, away from Patna city. Modern Patna developed around Bankipur. It emerged as one of the most educated constituencies of Bihar with a cosmopolitan outlook beyond sectarian considerations. Although these beneficial owners ruled India for some 200 years, the natives of Bankipur and elsewhere are yet to comprehend that all history is contemporary history and are yet to decode how narratives are weaponised. 

Have lessons been learnt from the defeat of 1757, 1764 and 1857?

Will Bankipur residents arrive at nirnaya (final ascertainment) to pass the age-old test enunciated in the first verse of 2,200 years old Nyaya Sutra, the foundational text of the Nyaya school of philosophy by Akṣapāda Gautama by factoring in tarka (argument),  jalpa (debating maneuver), vitanda (destructive criticism), hetväbhäsa (fallacy or error), chala (purposive distortion of the opponent), jäti (futile rejoinder based on mere similarity or dissimilarity), and vada (discussion for the final ascertainment)? The first verse reads:  

प्रमाण-प्रमेय-संशय-प्रयोजन-दृष्टान्त-सिद्धान्तावयव-तर्क-निर्णय-वाद-जल्प-वितण्डाहेत्वाभास-च्छल-जाति-निग्रहस्थानानाम्तत्त्वज्ञानात् निःश्रेयसाधिगमः  

(Supreme felicity is attained by the knowledge about the true nature of sixteen categories, viz., means of right knowledge (pramana), object of right knowledge (prameya), doubt (samsaya), purpose (prayojana), familiar instance (drishtanta), established tenet (siddhanta), members (avayava), confutation (tarka), ascertainment (nirnaya), discussion (vada), wrangling (jalpa), cavil (vitanda), fallacy or error (hetvabhasa), quibble (chala), futility (jati), and occasion for rebuke (nigrahasthana).) The knowledge about the true, nature of sixteen categories means true knowledge of the “ enunciation,” “ definition ” and “ critical examination ” of the categories. Nyāya Sūtra declares it's goal to be attainment of liberation of soul from wrong knowledge, faults and sorrow by four reliable means of obtaining knowledge (pramāṇa): Perception (Pratyaksha), Inference (Anuman), Comparison (Upman) and Reliable Testimony (Shabd).

The error is knowledge, an opinion or a conclusion about something that is different from what it really is. The error is always in the process of cognition itself, or the "subjective self", and not in the object. 

In Perceptual Error: The Indian Theories (1998),  S. Rao states that it is the duty of the knowledge-seeker to "test the validity of his knowledge", both in assumptions or through practice (experience), but neither the object of knowledge nor the knowledge itself is responsible for errors; only the knowledge-seeker and his process of cognition is. The Nyaya theory shares ideas on the theory of errors with Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism and Mimamsa schools of Indian philosophies.

If communities of Bankipur have to teach philosophical lessons to their children and grand children, will they not teach them the art of segregating the preferable from the pleasurable? For long unwise common sense club has been chosen disregarding library of good sense? 

Will the library get preference over the club to establish the culture of vada, the dialogue in pursuit if reality and truth to ensure that democracy remains a government by dialogue? 

Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court sets aside impugned order by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Siwan along with consequential proceedings

In Jitendra Kumar Sah vs. The State Of Bihar (2026), Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 8-page long judgement dated July 27, 2026, wherein, he allowed the petition and set aside impugned order dated December 6, 2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Siwan along with all its consequential proceedings qua petitioner. He took note of the date of lodging the FIR, the vehicle in issue was registered in the name of this petitioner and furthermore, the mobile phone was released in favour of this petitioner after due verification, accordingly, nothing incriminating appears against this petitioner as to proceed with any criminal case. 

Justice Jha relied on the guiding notes as available through Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

Supreme Court upholds judgments by Justices Ajay Kumar Tripathi and Hemant Gupta

In Shiv Nath Sharma vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Gupta and Sheel Nagu passed a 3-page long order dated July 23, 2026, wherein, it upheld the judgements by Patna High Court. The civil appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated April 7, 2016 of the High Court which arose out of an order dated May 18, 2015 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the appellant’s writ petition. The Supreme Court concluded;"5. We are at a loss to comprehend as to how the appellant could qualify the Class XII examination in 1970, before he qualified in the matriculation examination of 1971. 6. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was absolutely justified in not entertaining the writ petition as well as the intra- court appeal. 7. We also record that this is a matter, where no leave ought to have been granted in the first place. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstance noted above, the civil appeal is dismissed. 9. Time to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only in terms of the impugned order dated 07th April, 2016 is extended by a month from date."

In Shiv Nath Sharma vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt.
of Bihar & Ors. (2016), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered a 3-page long judgement dated April 7, 2016, wherein, it had concluded:"The appellant has referred to the certificate of Madhyama wherein 5.6.1955 has been shown as his date of birth. The appellant has played smart giving two dates of birth – one in the Madhyama ertificate which is more suitable date in case of employment and another in the records of the Matriculation examination. It is a clear case of fraud, which has been rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge under the order impugned herein. Even after the finding of the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant was vehemently persistent in pursuing the present appeal to say that the order under challenge in the writ application was issued without giving an opportunity of hearing. On admitted facts, we do not find that any opportunity of hearing  decision. The principal of natural justice does not follow any straight-jacket formula. When the facts are apparent, opportunity of hearing may not be required. Keeping in view the admitted fact that the Matriculation certificate of the appellant bears the date of birth as 5.6.1952, the result would be that the appellant would superannuate on the date from which, he has been made to retire.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) to be paid by the appellant to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority within one month from today." The judgement was authored by Justice Gupta upon hearing the order under challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal was passed by the Single Judge of the High Court on May 18, 2015, whereby the writ application filed by the petitioner challenging the order of retirement on the basis of date of birth of the appellant as June 5, 1952. 

The grievance of the appellant was that the appellant was made to retire by an ex parte order without giving an opportunity of hearing, therefore the order of retirement is not sustainable.  

In Shiv Nath Sharma vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar (2015), Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi dismissed the writ petition by his 2-page long judgement dated May 18, 20215. Justice Tripathi had concluded:"In the opinion of the Court, not only the impugned order is not required to be interfered with but the Sanskrit Shiksha Board or the State will be well advised to file a complaint case against the petitioner itself for his conduct and fraud on the face of record. Let the petitioner prove his innocence before the forum after institution of such a case." The other six respondents were: 2. The Special Director, Secondary Education, (Sanskrit), Education Department, Government of Bihar, 3. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board through its Secretary, Patna, 4. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, 5. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna,  6. The District Education Officer, Patna and 7. The District Programme Officer, Patna. 

The judgement recorded that if the petitioner did not deny that he had sat for matriculation examination in the year 1971 and had declared his date of birth to be June 5, 1952 then merely because he went ahead and acquired some more certificates and degrees like Madhayama, Uttar Madhayama etc., the date of birth cannot change. The educational qualification can be acquired through various norms and institutions but man cannot be born again and again before every examination.  The order dated December 15, 2014, by virtue of which petitioner had been asked to superannuate treating his date of birth to be June 5, 1952. The petitioner had filed the writ application that it is his 1955 date of birth as available in Uttar Madhyama certificate, which should be treated to be the correct date of birth. 

Justice Tripathi had observed: "Since the petitioner has not denied existence of two different dates of birth and two different certificates relating to him, this is a clear case of fraud played by the petitioner in seeking appointment under the respondents."