In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM.M 16868 of 2009 Decided on Aug 07,2009. Sanjeev Verma -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. Present: Mr.Vikram Singh,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Partap Singh,Senior, DAG,Haryana, for the State/respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 179 dated 20.3.2009 under Sections 356,379 I.P.C. at Police Station, City Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Smt.Anu Sanjay, who has stated that on 20.3.2009,while she was going on foot towards her house and had reached near Satkar Medical Hall in front of Dussehra ground, two young boys came from her back side on a motor cycle and they snatched a gold chain and a locket from her neck. The person who had snatched the chain was sitting on the black colour motor cycle. After registration of the case, investigation was carried out. On 26.5.2009 Manish Kumar alias Lucky and Shiv Kumar were arrested. Shiv Kumar got recovered the chain of his share on 29.5.2009. Manish Kumar alias Lucky disclosed that he had sold the chain of his share to the owner of Pooja Jewellers, Bank colony, for Rs. 6000/-, which is yet to be recovered. CRM.M-16868 of 2009 -2- The owner of Pooja Jeweller is Sanjiv Kumar who has committed an offence under Section 411 IPC by purchasing the stolen article. Before coming to this court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, which has been dismissed on 16.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In fact, the petitioner Sanjeev Verma is involved in same type of cases and one such case is CRM M 16233 of 2009 registered under Sections 379/356 at Police Station, City Yamuna Nagar, in which same gold snatcher Manish Kumar alias Lucky is an accused who had sold the gold chain to the petitioner and this very petitioner applied for anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by this Court on 13.7.2009. Thus, the petitioner is a habitual offender. Thus, keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner and the seriousness of the offence, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail . Hence, the bail application is hereby dismissed. Aug 07,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge