Mukesh Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, concerning beverages with negligible ethyl alcohol content. The petitioner's argument that the FIR was based on an incorrect presumption was implicitly accepted, especially given his lawful distribution of the products with GST invoices and a food license. The Court took note of the fact that the investigation had concluded and the petitioner had been in custody since 9.11.2020. Crucially, the Court was informed that the State's appeal against a previous High Court order (Annexure-8), which likely supported the petitioner's stance, had been dismissed by the Apex Court. This dismissal of the State's appeal likely reinforced the Court's inclination to grant bail. The operative direction was to enlarge the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Excise, Madhubani.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, is seeking regular bail in connection with Pandaul Police Station Case No. 270 of 2020. This case was registered under sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, following the seizure of non-alcoholic drinks distributed by the petitioner. A prior case, Pandaul Police Station Case No. 265 of 2020, was registered on 14.10.2020. Chemical examination of the seized items revealed a negligible ethyl alcohol content (0.8% v/v and 0.07% v/v). The petitioner contends he lawfully purchased these beverages through GST invoices as a licensed distributor of food products and that the FIR was lodged under an incorrect presumption. He has been in custody since 9.11.2020, and the investigation has concluded. The State opposed the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the presence of negligible ethyl alcohol content (0.8% v/v and 0.07% v/v) in beverages, which are otherwise non-alcoholic and distributed by the petitioner under a food license and GST invoices, renders them punishable under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, particularly Sections 30(a) and 35(e)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged under an incorrect presumption that any beverage containing alcohol, however negligible, is punishable. He submitted that he is a lawful distributor of non-alcoholic drinks, possessing a food license and valid GST invoices. He relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 627 of 2017 (M/s Smart India Marketing Proprietorship Concern and another vs the State of Bihar and others) to support his claim that the case was wrongly instituted. He also highlighted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the State's appeal against the order in Annexure-8 (the aforementioned Cr.W.J.C.). Revenue's Contention: The learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the bail application.