Breath Analyzer Test Is Not Conclusive Proof Of Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR

The Patna High Court has reiterated that a breathalyzer test alone is not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption and the same cannot be the sole basis of criminal prosecution under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri presiding over the case said, “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 a breath analyzer report, which cannot be said to be conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol, an F.I.R. has been registered.”

The bench was referring to Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) where the Apex Court had held that the factum of alcohol consumption cannot be deduced solely from the smell of alcohol, swaying gait, slurred speech, and pupil dilatation and confirmatory medical tests must be done.

The development comes in a criminal writ petitioner whereby a Senior Treasury Officer in the Finance Department of the State had sought quashing of Excise Police Station Case which registered against him under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Based on the factual matrix of the case, on May 2, 2024, an excise team conducted a breathalyzer test at the petitioner's temporary residence in Kishanganj. The test is reported to have indicated a blood alcohol content of 41 mg/100 ml. On this premise, the petitioner was arrested and an FIR was lodged against him. The prosecution relied only on the breath test, not on a blood or urine test.

The petitioner had contended that the outcome of the breathalyzer test was not clinching proof of alcohol consumption. The petitioner also argued that he had consumed alcohol-based homeopathic medicine prescribed to him for a stomach infection, and this could have been the reason for the reading of the breathalyzer. However, there was no further medical test to verify this probability.

The State, however, supported the FIR, arguing that the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, forbids consumption of alcohol in absolute terms and that government servants are barred from consuming alcohol specifically under Rule 4 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976. It contended that the breathalyzer test was sufficient to establish the offense and that the petitioner's claims of professional vendetta were baseless.

The Court however held that a breathalyzer test without supporting medical examination does not meet the evidentiary threshold required for prosecution and thus quashed the FIR.

Case Title: Narendra Kumar Ram vs The State Of Bihar and Ors

LL Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 9

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivesh Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Parasar, Advocate Ms. Meghali Diksha, Advocate Mr. Amrit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rabi Bhushan Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13

Click Here To Read Judgment