Madras High Court: In a petition filed by Gangster Rocket Raja under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under Section 505(2) of the Penal code, 1860 read with Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959, B. Pugalendhi, J. while considering the antecedents of Rocket Raja, and the fact that he has indulged in two communal violence murder cases and the ensuing elections, refused to grant anticipatory bail to Rocket Raja.
Background:
One girl, an erstwhile friend of the accused 1 has uploaded a video in the social media with a gun and stated that the accused 1 along with his associates are planning to commit murder of other community people, who are against them and for that purpose, they have organized weapons including a country made Gun. Based on this video, the Inspector of Police has registered a case against the first accused for the offence under Section 505(2) IPC read with 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. Based on the confession statement of the accused 1, the investigation agency conducted a search at Rocket Raja’s house, after getting due permission. In the search operation, the police recovered a patta Knife, a country made Revolver and a Telescope, which can be attached to a Gun. Since the weapons have been recovered from the house of Rocket Raja, he is arrayed as the accused 2.
Analysis:
The Court noted that petitioner is arrayed as an accused only through the confession statement of the accused 1, who was arrested based on a video uploaded by one girl. Thus, the Court said that it appears that accused 1 has severed his relationship with the girl and therefore, she has published the video, which she has taken along with the accused 1 with the country made Gun.
The Court noted that the accused 1 appears to be a follower of Rocket Raja and he has, in fact, tattooed his name on his chest. Further, it noted that all the accused persons involved in this case have had several previous cases.
The Court said that some of the cases involved by Rocket Raja are communal cases. The Court noted that Rocket Raja belongs to a particular community. Further, one of the friend’s of accused 1 has disclosed that the Rocket Raja have secured weapons in order to murder other community people. As per the Court this allegation needs to be investigated and the contention of the petitioner that the recovery was not made in his house is also needs to be investigated.
The Court remarked that Tirunelveli is a communal prone area. It is only for the past few years; the city has been without any communal violences. During the ensuing parliamentary elections, any small spark may lead to a catastrophe.
After referring to Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 382, wherein the Supreme Court has pointed out that the antecedents of the accused need not be taken into account at the time of considering the bail, the Court viewed that it cannot be equated to the present facts and circumstances of this case.
Considering the antecedents of Rocket Raja, and the fact that he has indulged in two communal violence murder cases; that the first accused’s friend has uploaded the video about the intention of the accused; the recovery of weapons; and taking into consideration of the ensuing elections, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to Rocket Raja at this stage.
[Arumugapandian v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 954, Order dated 12-04-2024]
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
