Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court granted bail to an accused involved in alleged adulteration of toddy that reportedly led to multiple deaths and serious illnesses in Hyderabad.
The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Kuna Saiteja Goud, booked under provisions of the NDPS Act and the Telangana Excise Act in connection with a case registered at the Prohibition and Excise Station, Balanagar. According to the prosecution, in July 2025, several toddy consumers in Kukatpally fell ill after consuming adulterated toddy. It was stated that, the investigations revealed that toddy samples from a shop linked to the accused contained Alprazolam, a controlled substance.
It was alleged that the accused mixed the substance to increase demand, resulting in hospitalisations and reported deaths. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations were false and based primarily on inadmissible confessional statements, with no contraband recovered from the accused.
It was further contended that the prosecution failed to establish the quantity of the alleged substance to attract the rigours of the NDPS Act and that there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the alleged deaths.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that the accused was the main person behind the adulteration and that the offence had serious public health consequences.
The Court observed that the accused was in judicial custody for more than nine months, while the trial had not yet commenced and was unlikely to conclude in the near future. Considering these aspects, the judge held that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose and granted bail.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court set aside proceedings of District Collector, Jangaon relating to seizure of machinery and imposition of penalties, holding that the action lacked statutory backing and violated principles of natural justice. The judge is dealing with writ pleas filed by Orsu Sujaatha and others earth moving contractors challenging seizure of their machinery and imposition of fines exceeding Rs 10 lakh.
It is the case of the petitioners that they were engaged by a private party to carry out gravel and land levelling work in private land and that the authorities misconstrued the activity as commercial excavation. It was contended that the vehicles were seized without notice or hearing. It was pointed out by the state that, during inspection, it was found that there was illegal excavation and transportation of gravel and mud.
It was contended that the machinery was seized for lack of permits under provisions of the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 which deal with protection of water bodies and regulation of water resources. The judge found that the said provisions do not confer power to impose penalties or seize machinery and that the proceedings were not traceable to any statutory provision. Justice Vijaysen accordingly set aside the proceedings and directed release of the machinery, while permitting the authorities to proceed afresh after issuing notice.
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ruled that police constables are not entitled to retrospective promotions unless they satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed under the service rules and accordingly rejected claims for notional promotion from an earlier date.
The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin allowed a writ appeal filed by the state observing that the promotion to the post of Head Constable must strictly comply with Rule 7 of the A.P. Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules, 1999, which mandates completion of the required service in the Civil Police cadre.
It was the case of writ petitioner that they were initially appointed as Armed Reserve Police Constables in 1989 and later converted to Civil Police in 2010, and therefore claimed entitlement to promotion from 2013 based on a government order reducing the qualifying service. It was argued that denial of such promotion, especially when alleged juniors were promoted, was arbitrary.
The State on the other hand contended that, while seniority could be protected from the date of initial appointment, eligibility for promotion accrues only after completion of the prescribed service in the Civil Police cadre, to be reckoned from the date of transfer. The panel observed that the respondents did not fulfil the mandatory requirements for promotion at the relevant time, including completion of requisite service and pre-promotional training.
It also noted that delay in granting promotions was due to pending legal challenges to the 2013 government Order and not attributable to the department. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
