The Kerala High Court refused to grant bail to Balakrishnan Periasamy Pillai, a native of Tamil Nadu and the accused in a heroin trafficking case, on the grounds of his alleged involvement in the drug trade.

During the court proceedings, Justice Ziad Rahman A.A.E. stated that from the evidence present on record, it becomes apparent at first glance that the accused played a significant role in the case, and granting bail to them would send the wrong message to society. It is noteworthy that the accused, a native of Tamil Nadu, is accused of being the mastermind behind the trafficking of over 217 kilograms of heroin worth nearly 1,500 crores, which was seized by the Coast Guard from two boats off the Kerala coast in May last year.

The court made this decision based on the accused Pillai's call details, cell tower locations, financial transactions, statements of co-accused in acceptance of guilt, and various other data, all of which were presented to the court by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The court remarked that, prima facie, all this evidence points towards the role of the petitioner (Pillai).

Justice Jiad Rahman stated that keeping the above principles in mind, ''I find that this is not a fit case where bail can be granted to the petitioner. Any leniency in the matter would be against the interest of society at large, and such a release would send a wrong message to society. With these remarks, the court rejected Pillai's plea for regular bail.''

As per the Central and DRI's account, the contraband was seized from a foreign vessel and two boats, all apprehended within the Indian maritime domain. Apart from Pillai, more than 20 others have been arrested in this case. The DRI, represented by Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) Manu S, informed the court that instructions for the purchase of the two boats for the transportation of drugs and money were given by Pillai.

DSG, opposing any form of relief, argued that the petitioner (Pillai) was the mastermind behind the entire transaction and had arranged for the funds. On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel contended that the evidence on record was not sufficient to indicate their role in the case, but the court dismissed this argument