'Giving relief will send wrong message to society', Kerala HC rejects bail plea of heroin smuggler accused

The Kerala High Court has denied bail to Tamil Nadu native Balakrishnan Periyasamy Pillai, accused of being the mastermind behind heroin smuggling.

During the hearing in the court, Justice Ziyad Rehman AA said, "The material on record prima facie shows that the accused had a full role in the case, and granting relief to him would send a wrong message to society." Significantly, the Tamil Nadu native is alleged to be the mastermind behind the smuggling of over 217 kg of heroin, worth about Rs 1,500 crore, that was seized by the Coast Guard from two boats off the Kerala coast in May last year.

The court pronounced this verdict on the basis of call details of accused Pillai, cell tower locations, money transactions, confessional statements of other accused, and various other data. All this evidence was presented before the court by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The court said in the hearing that, prima facie, all this evidence points towards the role of the petitioner (Pillai).

Justice Ziyad said that keeping in view the above principles, I find that this is not a fit case in which bail can be granted to the petitioner. Any lenient approach in the matter would be against the interest of the society as a whole and such release would send a wrong message to the society. With these observations, the court dismissed the regular bail plea filed by Pillai.

According to the Center and DRI, the banned material was recovered from a foreign vessel and two boats, and the drugs were seized in Indian waters. Besides Pillai, over 20 others have been arrested in the case. The DRI, represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSG) Manu S, told the court that the instructions and money for the purchase of two boats for transporting the drugs were given by Pillai.

The DSG opposed granting him any relief, saying the petitioner (Pillai) was the mastermind behind the entire transaction and had provided the finance. While the counsel for the petitioner claimed that the material placed on record was not sufficient to point out his role in the matter, the court rejected the argument.