The Kerala High Court, has recently, rejected to grant bail to Balakrishnan Periyasamy Pillai, a Tamil Nadu native who stands accused of orchestrating a major drug smuggling operation involving over 217 kilograms of heroin, valued at approximately Rs. 1,500 crore.
The drugs were seized by the coast guard from two boats off the Kerala coast in May last year.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., after a thorough examination of the evidence, has rejected the bail application of Balakrishnan Periyasamy Pillai.
The court determined that the materials on record, prima facie, indicate his involvement in the case. According to Justice A.A., granting bail to the accused in such a circumstance would convey a wrong message to society.
The court arrived at its decision based on a comprehensive analysis of call details records, cell tower locations, financial transactions, confession statements provided by other accused individuals, and other pertinent data related to Pillai, presented by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
The court stated, “Thus, from the analysis of the materials as mentioned above, it can be seen that, besides the confession statements, there are several materials showing the role of the petitioner (Pillai), at least prima facie. On appreciation of the materials placed before this court, by keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, I find that this is not a fit case in which bail can be granted to the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned above, any lenient view in the matter would be against the interest of society as a whole, and such a release would send a wrong message.”
With these observations, the court dismissed the plea for regular bail presented by Pillai.
According to the Centre and the DRI, the seized narcotics were discovered aboard a foreign vessel, and the two accompanying boats were apprehended in Indian waters.
Alongside Pillai, over 20 others, some of whom were found on the aforementioned boats, that have been apprehended in connection with the case.
The DRI, represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India, Manu S, contended that Pillai was responsible for directing the procurement of the two boats for the purpose of transporting the drugs.
The DSG argued against granting any form of relief to Pillai, asserting that he was the central figure in the entire transaction, providing both instructions & financial resources.
Pillai’s legal representative asserted that the evidence on record was insufficient to establish his role in the case, a contention that the court ultimately rejected.
