In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM.M 16870 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,Sr.DAG,Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.331 dated 31.8.2008 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. Sucheta Kaushik who has stated that on 30.8.2008,while she was coming on foot from Meena Market and had reached near the Community Centre of HUDA, two young boys came from front side on a black colour motor cycle. The person who was driving, struck his motor cycle in her Activa. The pillion rider boy snatched her gold chain of 4 tolas from her neck and thereafter, they fled away on their motor cycle. During investigation, Pawan Kumar and Manish Kumar were arrested on 1.6.2009. Both the accused had distributed the snatched chain in equal shares. Pawan Kumar accused got recovered half share of gold chain whereas Manish Kumar accused told that he had sold his share to Sanjeev Verma (petitioner) and the same is yet to be recovered. CRM.M 16870 of 2009 -2- 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, 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 is an accused who had sold the gold chain to this very petitioner and his anticipatory bail application has been dismissed by this Court on 13.7.2009. The petitioner is thus 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