ORDER : Application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for regular bail. 2. The applicant is the 4th accused in Crime No. 10/2020 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 8 (c), 20 (b) (ii) (B), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06/09/2020 at about 1:30 PM the Excise Inspector of the Special Squad got discreet information regarding transporting of narcotic drugs and intercepted a lorry bearing registration No. AP-29-TB-3207, and seized 501.5 KGs of dry ganja from the lorry, being transported by accused numbers 1 and 2 from Andhra Pradesh. 3 mobile phones were also recovered from A1 and A2. Further investigation revealed that the applicant was in constant contact over the phone with A1 and A2 and one Jithinraj, who too was made an accused. The applicant was allegedly a party to a conspiracy to transport contraband ganja from Andhra Pradesh and had also made arrangements for storage of the imported ganja in a go down. The applicant was arrested on 11/09/2020 and remanded to judicial custody. His application for bail before the jurisdictional Court was dismissed vide annexure-1 order. 4. The applicant states that he is innocent and has no connection whatsoever with the import of ganja from Andhra Pradesh by accused 1 and 2. He was employed in the Gulf and was acquainted with the brother of A5 Jithinraj. This acquaintance had led the applicant to keep contact with Jithinraj over the phone. That apart he has no connection whatsoever with the aforesaid allegations in the crime. The applicant states that he has no criminal antecedents and there is no possibility of his fleeing from justice. Hence, he seeks bail from this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant Sri. Blaze K Jose and Smt. K.K Sheeba the learned Prosecutor appearing for the State. Records and materials produced. 6. The learned Prosecutor Smt. K.K. Sheeba submits that during the investigation call records of the applicant pertaining to his mobile No. 9961989820, and also the call records pertaining to the mobile No. 9063621669 belonging to the 3rd accused and three mobile numbers belonging to the 5th accused, numbers 9526027868, 9188567715 and 9676520540 were examined and it was found that they were constantly in touch with each other. The mobile numbers belonging to A5 were recovered from the possession of accused 1 and 2. The details of the call records produced for perusal indicate that several calls were made on a single day within a short intervals indicating that they were discussing something very crucial. Hence, the learned Prosecutor submits that the applicant has a major role in this crime and therefore, his application for bail may be declined. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by both sides, I find that the applicant has been implicated mainly on the basis of Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. It is contended that he was a part of the conspiracy which resulted in large quantity of ganja being smuggled from Andhra Pradesh into Kerala. The applicant and A5 had also made arrangements to secure a Godown to store the contraband articles safely on its reaching Kerala. 8. Conspiracy is something done in secrecy. No direct evidence would be available to prove the fact of conspiracy. The recovery of mobile phones belonging to A5 from accused 1 and 2 and the call records indicating constant connection between the applicant with those phone numbers belonging to A3 and A5 indicates that he was deeply involved in the alleged drug peddling activity. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that A5 was merely an acquaintance does not appear to be true in view of the fact that they were in constant touch and a number of calls were seen made during a short period. Under the circumstances, I find that the applicant is not entitled to bail considering the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which requires the accused to comply with the twin condition and hold that there are reasonable grounds to hold that the applicant is not guilty and that he will not commit offences while on bail. Hence the application for bail is only to be dismissed, and I do so.