Amir Uddin Ahammed @ Amir Uddin Ahammad v. Union Of India

23.06.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Item No.3 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc.

Allowed C.R.M. (NDPS) 710 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with DRI Case No.

DRI/KZU/NDPS/ENQ80/2025 dated 13.09.2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/21(c)/23(c)/25/27A/29/8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

And In Re :

Amir Uddin Ahammed @ Amir Uddin Ahammad ... Petitioner.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Soumya Nag, Mr. Shiprovon Kumar Seal, Ms. Dibyanjona Das ... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Nadeem Sulaiman, Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Mr. Gourab Karmakar ... For the DRI Authority.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about nine months and has been implicated in the present case on the accusation that he had been working on behalf of the principal accused from whom seizure has been effected. The petitioner contends that there has been no recovery from the possession of the present petitioner and the house from which seizure has been effected do not belong to the present petitioner and they were intercepted at the time they knocked the house of the principal accused. It has also been pointed out that carriers in this case have already been granted bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the DRI Authority, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is a strong bondage between the principal accused and the present petitioner which would reflect from the CDR transactions to the tune of Rs.39,950/- has been detected in course of investigation between the principal accused and the present petitioner. Petitioner is thickly connected with the offence and was arrested at the time seizure was effected in the house. The house from where seizure has been effected, from the seizure list it reflects that the recovery was 345 grams of Cocaine, 1004 grams of Hydroponic Weeds and 32466 grams of Cannabis.

I have taken into account the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties. It has also been submitted that one of the accused is absconding. As such, the case presently is not progressing. Petitioner is in custody for nine months. There has been no recovery from the personal possession of the present petitioner and the principal allegation against the present petitioner is that he was working under one Tausif Ahmed. Having considered the period of detention of the present petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner may be released on bail on stringent conditions. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner viz., Amir Uddin Ahammed @ Amir Uddin Ahammad shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/-, with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the

satisfaction of the learned Judge, Bench-I (NDPS), City Sessions Court, Calcutta.

If on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date so fixed by the learned Trial Court and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority till further orders of this Court. Additionally, the petitioner shall meet with the Investigating Officer of the case or any officer assigned by the Deputy Director, DRI once in a week till further orders of this Court.

Report submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the DRI Authority be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (NDPS) 710 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of.

All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)