HC for stricter punishment in cases of chain snatching

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court asked the Union of India to bring an ordinance, if necessary, to introduce stringent punishment for the offence of chain snatching on Wednesday. The Chandigarh Police was also directed to furnish a status report on year-wise details about the installation of CCTV cameras.

As the petition filed by advocate Hari Chand Arora on the issue came up for resumed hearing this afternoon, the police were also at the receiving end. The Bench of Justice AK Mittal and Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal observed two incidents of chain snatching which took place soon after UT police officers went back from the High Court after the previous date of hearing.

Terming it as unappreciable, the Bench said it was, perhaps, a mistake to have spoken words of praise for the police that day. The Bench asked the counsel for the Union of India to consider bringing the ordinance which could be approved by Parliament during the monsoon session.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was informed of a proposal mooted by the UT Administration for introducing stringent provisions for punishing the chain snatchers on the pattern of Punjab. The Bench was told that the proposal was yet to be considered by the Union Home Ministry.

Referring to RTI information obtained by him, Arora submitted there were several serial offenders. Some of them had committed snatchings six and more time times during the last one year.

Referring to an affidavit filed in the High Court in which the UT Police claimed that most of the snatchers were drug addicts, Arora posed a question on the steps taken by the UT Administration for their treatment. He also told the Bench that a reply under the RTI Act revealed that the UT Police had never conducted dope test on the snatchers.

Arora added not even a single accused of chain snatching was ever caught in CCTV cameras in Chandigarh. At this stage, the Bench directed the UT Administration to submit a status report on the year-wise installation of CCTV cameras.

Adjourning the hearing to May 10, the Bench asked the petitioner to furnish his suggestions to the Bench in writing so these could be incorporated in the orders to be issued by the High Court.