Drunken Driving | 0.1mg Above Prescribed Alcohol Limit Not Enough To Face Criminal Trial: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a 25-year-old student for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, holding that subjecting him to a criminal trial when his breath alcohol reading was only 0.1 mg above the statutory limit would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe quashed an FIR lodged against the Petitioner under...
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a 25-year-old student for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, holding that subjecting him to a criminal trial when his breath alcohol reading was only 0.1 mg above the statutory limit would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe quashed an FIR lodged against the Petitioner under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
He was booked for driving a car under the influence of alcohol on the Laljipada, New Link Road, Kandivali. He was the subjected to Breath Alcohol Intoxication Test using a Breath Alcohol Analyser and the breath alcohol measurement taken from the Petitioner indicated a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 30.1 mg/100 ml.
The judge noted from the record, that the BAC of the petitioner was just 0.1mg above the permissible alcohol level and also considered the fact that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner.
However, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR on the ground that he is a student and has struggled a lot to get admission on the Erasmus University Rotterdam in Netherlands and has also received a Student's Visa for his further studies. He pointed out that he is scheduled to fly to Netherlands on August 3.
"In the averments of this petition, the Petitioner is a 25-year-old student with an unblemished record and no prior criminal antecedents. After putting in all his efforts in his education, the Petitioner has secured admission to a postgraduate programme at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands and obtained a student visa..... Forcing the Petitioner, a student pursuing his studies abroad, who holds a valid driver's license and has no criminal antecedents, to face a multi- year criminal trial over a 0.1 mg mechanical trifle would amount to an abuse of the judicial process," Justice Bhobe held in the order passed on August 6.
The judge further noted that the ingredients of the provisions invoked against Oze were not made out in the case. "There is no material on record, let alone any allegations in the impugned FIR, indicating that the Petitioner's gait was unsteady, that his tone or speech on June 6, 2026 at the time of his apprehension was incoherent or that his pupils were dilated. Neither a blood nor a urine test of the Petitioner was conducted on the said date," Justice Bhobe noted.
With these observations, the bench disposed of the plea.
Appearance:
Advocate Aditya Sutrale appeared for the Petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor Rajeshree Newton represented the State.
Case Title: Rohit Abhijit Oze vs State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition (Stamp) 13733 of 2026]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 370