The Patna High Court has ruled that a breathalyser test alone cannot be considered conclusive proof of alcohol consumption. The ruling, issued on February 13, quashed an FIR filed under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, reinforcing that only blood and urine tests can definitively establish alcohol consumption.
Court Cites Supreme Court Precedent
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri referred to a 1971 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra, which held that merely detecting the smell of alcohol or observing signs like unsteady gait and dilated pupils is not sufficient proof of alcohol consumption. The court emphasized that without proper medical tests, an individual cannot be conclusively held guilty of consuming alcohol.
The Case of Narendra Kumar Ram
The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Narendra Kumar Ram, a Bihar government employee, who was arrested by the Kishanganj Excise Police on May 2, 2024, for allegedly consuming alcohol. His counsel argued that Ram had been prescribed homeopathic medicines containing alcohol-based solvents for a stomach infection, which could have influenced the breathalyser test reading. However, no further medical tests were conducted to confirm alcohol consumption.
Allegations of Professional Vendetta
Ram’s petition also alleged that the Kishanganj district administration was targeting him due to a professional dispute. He had reportedly rejected a financial bill submitted by a senior officer, which may have led to retaliatory action against him. Following his arrest, Ram was suspended for violating the code of conduct for public servants, prompting him to seek relief from the high court.
Impact on Bihar’s Prohibition Law
Since the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act came into force in April 2016, over 6.5 lakh cases have been filed, with more than 95% related to liquor consumption. The high court’s ruling could set a precedent for future cases, potentially requiring stricter evidence beyond breathalyser tests.
Summary
The Patna High Court ruled that a breathalyser test alone is not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption. It quashed an FIR against a Bihar government employee, emphasizing that only blood and urine tests can confirm alcohol use. The case raises concerns about misuse of the Bihar Prohibition law and potential professional vendetta in enforcement actions.
