The court found reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty of drug-related offences, allowing bail despite NDPS Act restrictions.

ORDER :

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'NDPS Act'))

2. Petitioner is the 6^th accused in Crime No.1232 of 2024 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam registered for the offences punishable under sections 22(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

3. According to the prosecution, on 25.11.2024, the 1^st accused was found to be in possession of 3.550 grams of MDMA and thereafter on further inspection, 76.660 grams of MDMA was seized from the residence of the 2^nd accused kept for sale and the 6^th accused is alleged to have financed the procurement of the contraband and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.

4. Petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2025 and she has been in custody since then.

5. Sri.Anish Antony Anathazhath, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged did not occur. It was also submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the offence alleged and she has been roped in as an accused without any specific material to connect her with the crime. The learned counsel also submitted that the 3^rd accused is the petitioner's driver while the 4^th accused is her son, who is studying in Bangalore. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amounts paid by her towards salary and other allowances to her driver and the amounts paid to her son are treated as connecting links between her and the other accused to allege conspiracy. Learned counsel also pointed out that petitioner is suffering from serious illnesses and also that the 5^th accused has already been released on bail by the Sessions Court. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner stands on the same footing and was even arrested on 05.02.2025, the day on which the 5^th accused was arrested, the continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted especially she being a woman.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated that petitioner had specifically financed the purchase of contraband by the 4^th accused, who is her son, by transferring large amounts of money to him as well as to the 3^rd accused, who is her driver, and therefore the rigour under section 27A of the NDPS Act will apply. It was also submitted that the petitioner having been part of the conspiracy to indulge in drug peddling, she ought not to be released on bail

7. On a perusal of the records produced, it is noticed that the petitioner is alleged to have transferred large amounts of money every month to her son, the 4^th accused. The conduct of a parent in transferring money to her son for purposes of his studies, education or residence cannot be interpreted as conspiracy to procure drugs in the absence of something more. In order to implicate a person in the offence of conspiracy, it is necessary that an agreement between them is brought out by the prosecution. A mere knowledge or even a discussion of the plan is not per se enough. In this context, it has to be observed that though a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult to adduce direct evidence, the investigation can rely upon various materials to enable the court to infer that those acts were done with reference to the common intention as well as by other circumstantial evidence. Though the agreement for the purpose of conspiracy need not be proved, there must be some physical manifestation of the agreement. Reference in this context to the decisions of the Supreme Court in R.Venkatkrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2009) 11 SCC 737 and in State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra (2018) 10 SCC 516 are relevant.

8. Considering the nature of materials produced by the respondents, it is prima facie noticed that except for a few transactions of money by the petitioner to driver and her son, accused 3 and 4 respectively, there are prima facie no mate