Telangana HC Grants Bail in Hyderabad Toddy Adulteration Case
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court granted bail to an accused in connection with the alleged adulteration of toddy, which reportedly caused several deaths and serious illnesses in Hyderabad.
The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Kuna Saiteja Goud, booked under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the Telangana Excise Act in connection with a case registered at the Balanagar Prohibition and Excise Station. According to the prosecution, in July 2025, several confectionery consumers in Kukatpally fell ill after consuming adulterated toddy. Upon examination, it was stated that toddy samples taken from a store affiliated with the defendants contained Alprazolam, a controlled substance.
The defendant allegedly adulterated the substance to increase demand, resulting in hospitalizations and reported deaths. Petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations were false and based primarily on inadmissible confessional statements, and that no contraband was recovered from the defendant.
It was also alleged that the prosecution failed to establish the quantity of the alleged substance which would attract the stringency of the NDPS Act and that there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the alleged deaths.
The state opposed the defense, arguing that the defendant was the main person behind the adulteration and that the crime had serious public health consequences.
The court observed that the accused has been kept in judicial custody for over nine months, the trial is yet to commence and is unlikely to be concluded in the near future. Taking these aspects into account, the judge decided that continued detention would not serve any useful purpose and he was released on bail.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court quashed Jangaon District Collector’s case regarding seizure of machines and imposition of penalty on the ground that the action lacked legal basis and violated the principles of natural justice. The judge is taking up the pleas of Orsu Sujaatha and other earthmoving contractors to seize their machines and impose fines exceeding Rs 10 lakh.
The case of the petitioners is that they were engaged by a private party to carry out gravel and land grading work on private land and the authorities misinterpreted this activity as commercial excavation. It was claimed that the vehicles were seized without notice or hearing. It was stated that during the investigation carried out by the state, it was determined that illegal excavations were carried out and gravel and mud were carried.
The machines were allegedly seized due to lack of permits under the provisions of the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, which deals with protection of water bodies and regulation of water resources. The judge found that the provisions in question did not give the authority to impose fines or seize the machines and that the trial could not be based on any legal provision. Justice Vijaysen accordingly set aside the proceedings and ordered the release of the machines while allowing the authorities to proceed again after issuing notice.
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court held that police constables are not entitled to retroactive promotion unless they meet the eligibility conditions prescribed in the service rules and hence rejected their plea for notional promotion of an earlier date.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, allowed a writ appeal filed by the state, observing that promotion to the post of Head Constable must strictly comply with Rule 7 of the AP Police (Civilian) Subordinate Service Rules, 1999, which mandates completion of requisite service in the Civil Police cadre.
The writ petitioner alleged that they were first appointed as Armed Reserve Police Constables in 1989 and later converted to Civil Police in 2010 and therefore, they claimed the right to promotion from 2013 on the basis of a government order reducing qualified service. It was submitted that the denial of such promotion was arbitrary, especially in the case of alleged promotion of juniors.
The State, on the other hand, submitted that seniority can be maintained from the date of initial appointment, but eligibility for promotion accrues only after completion of prescribed service in the Civil Police cadre, calculated from the date of transfer. The panel observed that the participants did not meet the mandatory requirements for promotion at the relevant time, including completion of required service and pre-promotion training.
He also stated that the delay in granting promotions was due to pending legal challenges regarding the 2013 Government Order and could not be blamed on the ministry. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
