Abhishek alias Abhinesh s/o Devshankar Barme (Varma) vs State of Maharashtra Advocate - A.P.P. — 662/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 11th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln.
CNR: MHNG010032442026
e-Filing Number
05-03-2026
Filing Number
1476/2026
Filing Date
05-Mar-2026
Registration No
662/2026
Registration Date
05-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Nagpur
Judge
25-District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Last updated 12-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
227
Police Station
Kalmeshwar
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Abhishek alias Abhinesh s/o Devshankar Barme (Varma)
Adv. ASHOK KAILASH BHANGDE
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Advocate - A.P.P.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Special Court NDPS Act, Nagpur granted anticipatory bail to Abhishek alias Abhinesh in a ganja possession case, finding that he was implicated solely based on co-accused statements without corroborative evidence like phone records or monetary transactions, and that no contraband was seized from him personally. The court imposed conditions including a Rs. 50,000 bond, bi-weekly reporting to the investigating officer, and prohibition on tampering with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur
-
10-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur
-
07-Mar-2026
Reply/Say
District Judge 6 And Add.Sessions Judge,Nagpur
-
05-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 662/2026
Court Decision Summary The Special Court NDPS Act, Nagpur granted anticipatory bail to Abhishek alias Abhinesh in a ganja possession case, finding that he was implicated solely based on co-accused statements without corroborative evidence like phone records or monetary transactions, and that no contraband was seized from him personally. The court imposed conditions including a Rs. 50,000 bond, bi-weekly reporting to the investigating officer, and prohibition on tampering with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts