ROSHAN VINAYAK ROHANKAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., NANDANWAN, NAGPUR — ABA/231/2026
Case under Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) Section 438. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 27th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM040097982026
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
ABA/3098/2026
Filing Date
17-03-2026
Registration No
ABA/231/2026
Registration Date
26-03-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJNISH R. VYAS
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJNISH R. VYAS
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
ANTICIPATORY BAIL ( 4 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
27th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ROSHAN VINAYAK ROHANKAR
Adv. SYED SALMAN ALI,ANWER AHMAD KHAN,ANWER AHMAD KHAN, ,SK. SABAHAT ULLAH,ANWER AHMAD KHAN
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., NANDANWAN, NAGPUR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJNISH R. VYAS
ABA (AFTER NOTICE)
ABA (AFTER NOTICE)
ABA (AFTER NOTICE)
ABA (AFTER NOTICE)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | |
| 27-04-2026 | ABA (AFTER NOTICE) |
| 24-04-2026 | ABA (AFTER NOTICE) |
| 22-04-2026 | ABA (AFTER NOTICE) |
| 21-04-2026 | ABA (AFTER NOTICE) |
Orders
The Nagpur High Court granted anticipatory bail to Roshan Vinayak Rohankar in a drug trafficking case (Crime No. 23/2026 under NDPS Act sections 8(c), 22(c), 20(b)(ii)(a), and 29), finding insufficient direct evidence against him. The court noted that only a co-accused's statement implicated the applicant, with no corroborating evidence such as telephonic records, monetary exchanges, or criminal history, and the applicant was not present at the seizure site. Bail was granted on a Rs. 25,000 personal bond with conditions including police station attendance and cooperation with investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Nagpur High Court granted anticipatory bail to Roshan Vinayak Rohankar in a drug trafficking case (Crime No. 23/2026 under NDPS Act sections 8(c), 22(c), 20(b)(ii)(a), and 29), finding insufficient direct evidence against him. The court noted that only a co-accused's statement implicated the applicant, with no corroborating evidence such as telephonic records, monetary exchanges, or criminal history, and the applicant was not present at the seizure site. Bail was granted on a Rs. 25,000 personal bond with conditions including police station attendance and cooperation with investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts