Maksud Ahmad Aminuddin vs State of Maharashtra Advocate - A.P.P. — 136/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 12th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln.
CNR: MHNG010006792026
e-Filing Number
12-01-2026
Filing Number
330/2026
Filing Date
12-01-2026
Registration No
136/2026
Registration Date
12-01-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Nagpur
Judge
25-District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
FIR Details
FIR Number
859
Police Station
Yshodharanagar
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Maksud Ahmad Aminuddin
Adv. Nikhil Raju Sharma
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Advocate - A.P.P.
Hearing History
Judge: 25-District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur
Disposed
Order
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Order |
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 21-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Special Court NDPS Act, Nagpur granted bail to accused Maksud Ahmad Aminuddin in a drug possession case, finding that the 42.80 gms of MDMA powder seized from him constitutes an intermediate quantity below the commercial threshold, making Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. The court ordered his release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety, noting his 90-day custody period and lack of evidence warranting further detention, subject to conditions including reporting to investigators and non-tampering with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Special Court NDPS Act, Nagpur granted bail to accused Maksud Ahmad Aminuddin in a drug possession case, finding that the 42.80 gms of MDMA powder seized from him constitutes an intermediate quantity below the commercial threshold, making Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. The court ordered his release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety, noting his 90-day custody period and lack of evidence warranting further detention, subject to conditions including reporting to investigators and non-tampering with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts