Allowed¶14

Kaushlendra Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Jan 2026CR. MISC./2684/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR — Section 37, Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — breath analyzer reading (65 mg/100 ml) alone insufficient without blood/urine confirmation — no physical signs of intoxication alleged — Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930 applied — State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 categories applied — departmental exoneration on identical allegations — abuse of process of law — inherent jurisdiction — CRL.MISC. No.2684 of 2024, Patna High Court, decided 06-01-2026, Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; First Information Report registered as Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 635 of 2023 dated 09.09.2023 quashed. ¶14

Kaushlendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed; First Information Report registered as Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 635 of 2023 dated 09.09.2023 quashed.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether a prosecution case resting almost entirely on a breath analyzer reading, without confirmatory blood or urine examination and without any observable physical or behavioural signs of intoxication, can sustain criminal proceedings under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. +2 more

¶8

Court's answer

The foundation of the prosecution case rests almost entirely on the breath analyzer test; there is a complete absence of corroborative medical evidence in the form of blood or urine examination, and no allegation that the petitioner exhibited any physical signs commonly associated with intoxication.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Applying Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, breath analyzer results or smell of alcohol, in isolation, cannot form the sole basis for concluding that a person has consumed alcohol; the ratio therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

¶9

Key takeaways

While departmental and criminal proceedings are independent and exoneration in one does not automatically nullify the other, the departmental findings here reinforce the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner lack credibility and are unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial.ratio¶10
The FIR, being founded on incomplete, uncorroborated and unreliable evidence, does not disclose a prima facie case warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.; oral judgment dated 06-01-2026) allowed a quashing application and quashed FIR No. 635 of 2023 of Gardanibagh P.S. (dated 09.09.2023) instituted under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution case rested almost entirely on a breath analyzer reading of 65 mg per 100 ml, with no confirmatory blood or urine examination and no allegation of any physical or behavioural sign of intoxication (unsteady gait, incoherent speech, etc.). Relying on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, the Court held that breath analyzer results or smell of alcohol, in isolation, cannot form the sole basis for concluding consumption of alcohol, and that blood and urine examinations alone are recognized as reliable and conclusive methods. The petitioner's exoneration by the Enquiry Officer in departmental proceedings on identical allegations, while not automatically nullifying criminal proceedings, reinforced the lack of credibility of the FIR allegations. Drawing on the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335, the Court found the FIR founded on incomplete, uncorroborated and unreliable evidence disclosing no prima facie case, and held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, justifying exercise of inherent jurisdiction at the threshold.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2684 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-635 Year-2023 Thana- GARDANIBAG District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Kaushlendra Kumar S/o Late R.P. Sinha R/o -Village-Gopalpur, P.S.-Bikram, District- Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06-01-2026

¶9

Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned APP for the State.

¶10

The present application has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report registered as Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 635 of 2023, instituted for the alleged offence punishable under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶11

The prosecution case, in brief, is that while the police were on routine night patrolling at about 20:30 hours near Anisabad Golambar, information was received regarding consumption of liquor at the C.S. Office, Gardanibagh. Upon reaching the said place, it is alleged that four to five persons fled

¶12

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2684 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026 2/7

¶13

from the spot, out of whom two persons were apprehended including the petitioner. A breath analyzer test was conducted upon him, which allegedly indicated alcohol content of 65 mg per 100 ml, whereas the co-accused, namely Upendra Kumar, was found to have 0 mg per 100 ml and was accordingly released, while the petitioner was taken into custody and the present F.I.R. came to be registered.

¶14

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution rests solely on the breath analyzer reading, without any confirmatory medical examination by way of blood or urine analysis, as the breath analyzer test alone cannot conclusively establish consumption of alcohol. It is contended that the breath analyzer test is, at best, a preliminary screening tool and cannot be treated as substantive evidence of consumption of alcohol. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been consuming homeopathic medicines and that several other extraneous factors such as use of toothpaste, mouthwash, breath fresheners, metabolic variations and body temperature are known to affect breath analyzer readings, thereby rendering such readings unreliable in the absence of corroboration.

¶15

It is further submitted that subsequent to the registration of the FIR, departmental proceedings were initiated

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2684 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026 3/7

¶17

against the petitioner on identical allegations. A full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted and the entire matter was assessed. Upon such enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed and reasoned report exonerating the petitioner of all charges. The said report has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel submits that though departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the departmental exoneration lends strong support to the petitioner’s contention that the allegations in the FIR are unfounded and continuation of the criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶18

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Narendar Kumar Ram v. State of Bihar, rendered in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1430 of 2024, wherein it was held that a breath analyzer test by itself, in the absence of corroborative medical evidence such as blood or urine examination, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1971) 3 SCC 930 , wherein it was categorically held

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2684 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026 4/7

¶20

that no conclusion regarding consumption of alcohol can be drawn merely from the smell of alcohol on a person’s breath, unsteady gait, incoherent speech or dilated pupils, and that the factum of consumption can be reliably established only through blood and urine tests. In the present case, it is pointed out that there is not even an allegation that the petitioner exhibited any physical or behavioral symptoms of intoxication at the time of his apprehension.

¶21

Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR was registered on the basis of credible information and that the breath analyzer test was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, using an authorized and calibrated device. It is contended that the breath analyzer reading of 65 mg per 100 ml, prima-facie, discloses commission of an offence and justifies registration of the FIR. It is further argued that departmental exoneration does not operate as a bar to criminal prosecution, as the two proceedings operate in distinct fields.

¶22

This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the materials available on record, and the settled principles of

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2684 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026 5/7

¶24

law governing the issue. Upon consideration, it becomes evident that the foundation of the prosecution case rests almost entirely on the breath analyzer test allegedly conducted by the police party. There is a complete absence of corroborative medical evidence in the form of blood or urine examination, which alone are recognized as reliable and conclusive methods for establishing consumption of alcohol. This Court also finds that there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner was found to be walking unsteadily, speaking incoherently, or exhibiting any other physical signs commonly associated with intoxication.

¶25

The absence of such corroborative circumstances assumes significance in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1971) 3 SCC 930 , wherein it has been unequivocally held that breath analyzer results or smell of alcohol, in isolation, cannot form the sole basis for concluding that a person has consumed alcohol. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

¶26

The Court also takes note of the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the same set of allegations, which culminated in his exoneration after a detailed enquiry. While it is trite law that departmental proceedings and

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2684 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026 6/7

¶28

criminal proceedings are independent and that exoneration in one does not automatically nullify the other, in the present case the departmental findings do reinforce the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner lack credibility and are unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial.

¶29

Further guidance is drawn from the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 , wherein the contours of the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings were delineated. One of the well-recognized categories warranting such interference is where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶30

Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the FIR, being founded on incomplete, uncorroborated and unreliable evidence, does not disclose a prima-facie case warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings.

¶31

Ordinarily, the Court would be slow to interfere with an FIR at the threshold; however, where the materials on record demonstrably fail to satisfy the basic legal requirements

¶32

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2684 of 2024 dt.06-01-2026 7/7

¶33

for prosecution and continuation of proceedings would result in undue harassment of the accused without serving any legitimate public interest, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the absence of confirmatory medical evidence, lack of any observable indicia of intoxication, and the petitioner’s exoneration in departmental proceedings cumulatively persuade this Court to hold that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶34

Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the First Information Report registered as Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 635 of 2023 dated 09.09.2023, is hereby quashed.

¶35

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶36

Alok Verma/-

¶37

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	19.01.2026
Transmission Date	19.01.2026

Kaushlendra Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushlendra Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhuri Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Sampat Kumar @ Vikki @ Bikky Vs The State of Bihar

Renu Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Samir Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Samrat Sehgal Vs The State of Bihar

Manbodh Kumar Singh @ Manbodh Singh Vs The State of Bihar