In Narendra Kumar Ram vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Sect. Excise Commr. Cum Inspector General of Registration, Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court had passed a 5-page long order dated February 13, 2025, whereby, he quashed the Excise Police Station Case No. 559 of 2024 (Special Case No. 572 of 2024), dated May 2, 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The writ petition was allowed.
Bihar government has challenged this order before Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta. It came up for hearing on August 20, 2025.
The case before the High Court was that the petitioner was allegedly found in an inebriated state at his temporary residence in Kishanganj on May 2, 2024, based on a breath analyzer test conducted by an excise team. He was immediately arrested and an F.I.R. was registered against him. The case was before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV cum Special Judge-2 (Excise), Kishanganj.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the entire prosecution case is based solely on the breath analyzer test, which cannot be a conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol. He also submitted that no confirmatory blood or urine test was conducted, which is mandatory under law.
Justice Chaudhuri recalled Supreme Court's decision in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1971(3)SCC930, wherein, the Court held that no conclusion with regard to consumption of alcohol by a person can be made on the facts that the appellant’s breathe was smelling of alcohol, that his gait was unsteady, that his speech was incoherent and that his pupils were dilated. Consumption of alcohol can only be ascertained by way of blood and urine test by a person suspected to have consumed alcohol.
In the case before the High Court, there was no allegation that at the time of arrest the gait of the original petitioner was unsteady, he was speaking incoherently or that his pupils were dilated.
Justice Chaudhuri stated that in the above-stated report, the Supreme Court found that the blood and urine examination of the appellant was not done and finally held that mere smelling of alcohol is not enough to hold that the petitioner consumed alcohol on the date of his apprehension.
The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the petitioner had visited Electro Homeopathy Institute, Patna on April 16, 2024 for stomach infection treatment, where he was prescribed liquid homeopathic medicines containing alcohol-based solvent. This could have led to the blood alcohol concentration reading of 41/mg/100 ml. in the breath analyzer test, but no further medical examination was conducted to establish the possibility of consumption of alcohol. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the F.I.R. and subsequent disciplinary action were initiated due to professional vendetta. The District Magistrate,Kishanganj directed for registration of the F.I.R. and personally pushed the case for departmental action, including suspension, which shows mala fide intent. The petitioner had earlier returned certain financial bills submitted by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO), Kishanganj, citing procedural errors, which might have triggered retaliatory action against him.
The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the criminal case and subsequent departmental action violate his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The prosecution is based on arbitrary action, without following proper legal procedures, and the suspension without concrete evidence is also not acceptable in the eyes of law.
The counsel for the State had submitted that the petitioner was found in an inebriated condition at his residence with a breath analyzer test, confirming alcohol consumption of 41 mg./100 ml. The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 prohibits alcohol consumption in any form and government servants are specifically barred under Rule 4 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976. He further contends that the case was registered lawfully, the breath analyzer test was accurate and no procedural irregularities occurred. The petitioner’s claim of mala fide action are baseless and an attempt to evade legal consequences.
Justice Chaudhary had observed: "....this Court has no other alternative but to hold that the authorities failed to consider the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and based on breath analyzer report, which cannot be said to be a conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol, F.I.R. has been registered." Now the matter is before the Supreme Court.
