RAHUL MACHINDRA PAWAR vs State Indira Nagar Police stn Nashik — 317/2026
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (authentication of Documents) Rules Section 37, 8(C), 22(C), 29. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 23rd April 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHNS010012922026
e-Filing Number
03-03-2026
Filing Number
681/2026
Filing Date
04-03-2026
Registration No
317/2026
Registration Date
04-03-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court , Nashik
Judge
3-DISTRICT JUDGE-6 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
412
Police Station
INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAHUL MACHINDRA PAWAR
Adv. PRASANNA SHIVDAS NIKAM
Respondent(s)
State Indira Nagar Police stn Nashik
Hearing History
Judge: 3-DISTRICT JUDGE-6 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
Disposed
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 21-04-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 17-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 10-04-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 06-04-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court rejected Rahul Machindra Pawar's bail application in an NDPS drug case. The applicant was arrested for possession of 61.5 grams of Mephedrone (commercial quantity) under sections 29, 22(c), and 8(c) of the NDPS Act, carrying 10-20 years imprisonment. The court found that the applicant had 10 prior criminal cases including serious offences, had committed the present offence while already on bail for previous cases, and played a specific role in selling contraband directly and facilitating other accused—establishing a pattern of reoffending that justified continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected Rahul Machindra Pawar's bail application in an NDPS drug case. The applicant was arrested for possession of 61.5 grams of Mephedrone (commercial quantity) under sections 29, 22(c), and 8(c) of the NDPS Act, carrying 10-20 years imprisonment. The court found that the applicant had 10 prior criminal cases including serious offences, had committed the present offence while already on bail for previous cases, and played a specific role in selling contraband directly and facilitating other accused—establishing a pattern of reoffending that justified continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts