Almost certainly not. Almost for reasons I'll address below. Certainly not because:

Analogous to Satan worshippers.

This isn't really a historical phenomenon in any society. Satan, the devil, Ahriman/Angra Mainyu, whatever flavor of evil anti-god you want to choose, the whole point is that they are evil. They are the root cause of bad things. Not gods who cause bad things because worshippers didn't appease them as in classic polytheistic systems, but a divine being that wants evil to happen in the world. Modern theistic Satanist practices (as opposed to Anton Lavey's atheist, civil rights oriented Church of Satan), only really appear loosely in the 18th Century and took on organized forms in the late-20th. They are all rooted in Christian folk tradition with inspiration drawn up from the rediscovery of Gnostic texts, specifically the idea that Satan rebelled against an unjust God.

Zoroastrianism and other Iranian dualist traditions, like Manichaeism, do not have this concept. Different interpretations of whether Ahriman was created by Ahura Mazda or both have always existed have been put forward over time, but the basics of what Ahriman is have remained remarkably consistent. While Ahura Mazda and his yazatas created the world and everything in it, Ahriman and his daiva exist outside material creation and hate everything about it.

There's nothing to be gained from worshipping them at all because their sole purpose is destroy everything. Unlike strict monotheism seen in Abrahamic traditions, Ahura Mazda does not punish people for their failings or create disasters in the world (ie the logic behind theistic Satanism's unjust God). All of that is the sole provenance of Ahriman and the result of humanity not providing enough aid to the yazatas through worship. The only slight exception is that Mazda and the yazatas will forsake individuals who succumb to too many of the daiva's temptations and allow them to be taken to hell. See theological references in the Vendidad 1, 13, and 19, the Greater Bundahishn 3-5, 27, and 30, the Dadestan-i Denig 19-25, and the Denkard 3.

Obviously, I've focused on Iran/Persia (via Zoroastrianism) up to this point. That's because there's no evidence that Ahriman was ever a concept, let alone a god, in India. The direct connections between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism (or rather Vedic religion specifically) were dramatically overestimated by early modern scholarship, which I've discussed before. The Gathas and later traditions about the prophet Zoroaster himself make it clear that at least some of the daiva probably started off as actual gods worshipped by early Iranians. However, the Vedic/Indo-Aryan half of the Indo-Iranian ethnolinguistic group split off at least 500 years before Zoroaster's time. So most connections between Vedic characters and Zoroastrian ones are very indirect. On top of that, the Gathas don't actually have much evidence for Ahriman (Avestan Angra Mainyu) at all. He actually seems to be an even later addition as a specific, named force in Zoroastrianism. There's an unspecified "deceiver," but from the little we have from Zoroaster's actual theology, Aka Mainyu (later Akoman) and Akem Manah, which are obvious inversions of Spenta Mainyu and Vohu Manah, two of the great and good Amesha Spentas.

Occasionally, older scholarship tried to connect "Angra Mainyu" to "Angiras," a legendary sage from the Rig Veda, who served as a sort of Prometheus figure, mediating between humanity and the Agni-Deva, gods of fire. The deva vs daiva and act of procuring forbidden knowledge made the connection appealing in early scholarship, but there's not much to support it. Avestan Angra means "destruction" and maybe loosely related Angiras' name, but in other Sanskrit literature angirasa and angara are words related to fire and burning coals. In light of that, Angiras' name is more more likely to related to Agni, both the word for "fire" and the god of fire. Regardless, Angiras is a human sage not a god to be worshipped, and there's no evidence that the Indians picked up the ultimate embodiment of bad things from Iran as a god either.

That brings me to the "almost" at the beginning of my answer. Nobody was worshipping Ahriman in Persia and India, but they might have been in the Roman Empire. The Roman mystery cult of Mithras borrowed the Zoroastrian yazata Mithra as their chief deity, presumably through a combination of Zoroastrian communities in Roman Anatolia and merchant or military contact with the Parthian Empire. Roman Mithraism on had very basic aesthetics and terminology in common with Zoroastrianism and their worship of Mithra. One of those basic commonalities was the presence of Ahriman, who the Romans called Arimanius.

Even the basic tenants of Mithraism are very poorly documented. It was a deliberately secretive "mystery cult" after all. So, we do not have a great understanding of what exactly Arimanius meant to them. Many scholars have pointed out that it would be very strange and unlikely for anybody to adopt a god whose sole role was to create evil and destroy the world. However, the Mithraists clearly did not adopt Zoroastrian beliefs very directly. In fact, one of the key acts of creation in Mithraism is Mithras slaying a great bull. The scene was the centerpiece, like a Christian cross, in every Mithraic sanctuary. The closest parallel in Zoroastrian mythology is an act of Ahriman's ultimate evil, in which he corrupts the spirit Jahi and convinces her to kill Gavaevodata, the primordial bull-ancestor of all animals. Only the timely intervention of Mah, the yazata of the moon, saves the bull's essence and creates animal life. The Mithraic scene even features Mithras being assisted by a scorpion, snake, both considered evil in Zoroastrian doctrine, but also the Moon and a dog, extremely holy things in Zoroastrianism.

So it's clear that the the Mithraists didn't have an accurate understanding of good and evil in Zoroastrian religion. This is further reinforced by Plutarch, a Roman Greek, describing Areimanius and his role in Zoroastrianism as an equivalent to Hades, still associated with death but overall a much more benign deity. Plutarch also associates the haoma ritual with Areimanius, incorrectly understanding an act of worship to Ahura Mazda because it took place in the dark, and claims that Persian kings called on him for aid because of his association with death, once again misunderstanding the connection with Hades.

This might come forth in the Mithraic use of Arimanius. At least five inscriptions commemorating an offering to Arimanius on Mithraic altars have been found from various parts of the Roman Empire. There is no additional context for what the Mithraists hoped to accomplish with these offerings, but it seems to indicate some level of worship of Arimanius in Roman territory.