Chandigarh

RTI DISCLOSURES ON CHAIN SNATCHINGS IN UT CHANDIGARH, NO DOPE TEST OF ACCUSED, EVEN REPEATEDLY STANCHINGS

April 21, 2018 09:18 AM
image Courtesy: Hello City

*No dope test ever conducted to ascertain whether the accused was a drug addict or not-*Bail documents in all cases found to be genuine-* None of accused found to be living as a “Paying Guest’ within UT Chandigarh-*3 snatchers  got declared as Proclaimed Offenders by Sector-17 Police Station-*Atleast 7 accused are involved in more than one case of snatching-*Most of accused reside within UT Chandigarh itself. 

Chandigarh (Subhash Jindal) 

RTI information received by RTI Activist –cum-Advocate Hari Chand from UT Police is quite revealing. In response to his RTI Application dated  23.3.2018, he has received information from Police Stations 3,11, 17 and Sub Division Central so far, with reference to snatchings which occurred on or after 1.1.2017. 

H.C.Arora ,Advocate
To a specific question raised “Whether dope test was conducted on any of the accused of chain snatching, and the further action taken for de-addiction of such an accused, who were found to be drug addicts?”, the  response from these Police Stations is uniform and consistent. None of them got conducted any dope test on accused. 

None of the chain snatching accused was found to be residing  as a “Paying Guest” within Union Territory, Chandigarh- is  the consistent reply to another query raised by the RTI Activist. 

Bail documents of none of the snatching accused have been found to be fake or ingenuine. –is the other information given by the CPIO-Central Sub Division Chandigarh. It is to be noticed that in the affidavit dated 20.3.2018  filed by UT Police  in the High Court (in a PIL filed by advocate Hari Chand ), it had been stated that “Further, it has also been seen that persons who stand surety for such accused are either not traceable or are fictitious, and no action, let alone any strict penal action, is taken against the persons who identify such sureties.”-Thus, a feeble attempt was made to push the blame to Courts, which attracted the ire of the High Court also during previous hearing of PIL

Further, 3 of the snatchers, namely (i) Gagandeep Singh (of Ludhiana); (ii) Mithun (of  Maloya, UT Chandigarh); an (iii) Ramesh (village Bad Majra, Kharar) have been got declared as “Proclaimed Offenders” by Sector-17 Police, as they did not appear in Court after their release on bail.

 Most significant aspect of snatchings in UT Chandigarh is that there are a substantial number of repeat offenders. Those include (i) Kamal Thakur (of HP); (II) Harpreet Singh (of Mohali) (iii) Chinu of Dadu Majra; (iv) Dilshad (of Raipur Kala, UT Chandigarh); (v) Vicky from Delhi; (vi) Usman Ali from Delhi; (vii) Shakil Ahmed from Shahdara, Delhi.  Dilshad and Vicky act together. They are arrested in about half a dozen snatchings which took place on or after 1.1.2017 in Chandigarh. 

Thus, according to advocate Hari Chand, there is need to make the bail conditions more stringent in case of repeat offenders, but at the same time, it is the duty of Chandigarh Police to bring the past credentials of the accused to the notice of the concerned Court, while considering application of such accused for granting bail.

The cases against snatchers are registered under section 379, 356, 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 379 pertains to punishment for theft; Section 356 pertains to “Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person. Section 411 is attracted in cases of dishonestly receiving stolen property.

Have something to say? Post your comment