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. 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. 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 materials which could be regarded as a physical manifestation of an agreement to conspire between the other accused to procure a contraband. 9. Apart from the above, petitioner has been in custody from 05.02.2025 and the 5 th accused, who also stands in almost a similar position as that of the petitioner, has been released on bail by the Sessions Court as per order dated 02.06.2025 in Crl.M.C. No.1327 of 2025. 10. In the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau V. Kashif [ (2024) INSC 1045 ] the Supreme Court recently observed that “There has been consistent and persistent view of this Court that in the NDPS cases, where the offence is punishable with minimum sentence of ten years, the accused shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. While considering the application for bail, the court has to bear in mind the provisions of S.37 of the NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature. The recording of finding as mandated in S.37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the said Act. Apart from granting opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor, the other two conditions i.e., (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are the cumulative and not alternative conditions.” 11. Apart from granting opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor, the other two conditions i.e., (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are the cumulative and not alternative conditions.” 11. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh and Others [ (2020) 12 SCC 122 ], the scheme of section 37 requires that the power to grant bail under the NDPS Act is subject to the limitation placed in the said provision over and apart from the restrictions under the procedural law and the twin conditions stipulated therein are required to be satisfied. Further, in the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau V. Mohit Aggarwal [ (2022) 18 SCC 374 ], it has been observed that the focus must be on the availability of reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against and also that he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act. The Supreme Court went on to observe that the length of the period of custody or that the charge sheet had been filed or even that the trial has commenced are by themselves are not considerations that can be treated as persuasive to grant bail under section 37 of the NDPS Act. 12. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there are reasonable grounds for this Court to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged and considering that there are no criminal antecedents against her, there is no possibility of her committing any offence while on bail. The rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act has thus been diluted in this case against the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. (b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. (c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall she tamper with the evidence. (b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. (c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall she tamper with the evidence. (d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while she is on bail. (e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction. In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.