Chain Snatching Laws In Metro Cities
I. Introduction
Chain snatching is a form of street crime where offenders, often on motorbikes or foot, snatch gold chains or other ornaments from individuals, usually women, in public places. It is a serious and growing menace in Indian metro cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai, and Hyderabad due to:
High population density
Crowded streets and public transport
Poor surveillance in suburban and slum areas
Ease of disposing of stolen gold
Though not defined specifically in any central statute as “chain snatching,” the act is covered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and state-specific police laws.
II. RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS UNDER IPC
Chain snatching is prosecuted under the following IPC sections:
| Section | Description |
|---|---|
| Section 379 | Theft – Basic offence (punishable with 3 years + fine) |
| Section 356 | Assault or use of criminal force in attempting theft from a person (2 years + fine) |
| Section 392 | Robbery – If force or fear of injury is used (10 years to life + fine) |
| Section 397 | Robbery with use of deadly weapon or grievous hurt (min. 7 years) |
| Section 411 | Dishonestly receiving stolen property |
| Section 34 or 120B | Common intention or criminal conspiracy (if multiple persons involved) |
III. STATE POLICE INITIATIVES IN METRO CITIES
Though IPC is a central law, metro cities often introduce special drives, fast-track courts, and public awareness campaigns to combat chain snatching:
Mumbai Police use anti-chain snatching squads and CCTV surveillance.
Delhi Police conduct “Operation Sajag” to monitor known offenders.
Chennai Police classify chain snatching under “grave crimes” and track habitual offenders.
Hyderabad Police use crime mapping and snatcher databases.
IV. DETAILED CASE LAWS ON CHAIN SNATCHING
Let’s now explore six important judicial decisions that dealt with chain snatching offences:
1. Raju v. State of Karnataka, 2007 Cri LJ 3692 (Kant HC)
Facts: The accused snatched a gold chain from a woman walking on a busy road in Bengaluru and fled on a bike. He was caught later based on CCTV footage and eyewitness identification.
Judgment:
The Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction under Section 392 IPC (Robbery), noting that the act involved force and fear, thereby going beyond theft.
Key Point:
Chain snatching becomes robbery, not mere theft, when there is physical force or intimidation.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Pintu Ramesh Chavan, 2010 (Bom HC)
Facts: The accused snatched a chain while riding pillion on a bike in Mumbai. Victim’s neck was injured in the process.
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court confirmed conviction under Sections 392 and 397 IPC. The use of a knife and causing injury made it a robbery with weapon, invoking the more serious Section 397.
Key Point:
Injury to victim and use of weapon during chain snatching can lead to enhanced punishment.
3. Ravinder Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2532
Facts: The accused snatched a gold chain in a crowded Delhi market. Caught immediately by the public, chain was recovered on the spot.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court emphasized the importance of immediate recovery, and eyewitness testimony was considered reliable.
Key Point:
Quick recovery and public intervention support conviction even if CCTV or forensic evidence is absent.
4. K. Raju v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015 Cri LJ 398 (Mad HC)
Facts: In Chennai, the accused was involved in a series of chain snatching incidents. Police relied on habitual offender records and victim identification.
Judgment:
The Madras High Court confirmed conviction, observing that habitual snatchers can be booked under preventive detention laws and repeat offences should attract stricter sentencing.
Key Point:
Habitual offenders in chain snatching can be subjected to Goonda Acts or preventive detention laws by states.
5. State of Telangana v. Sandeep Reddy, 2019 (Telangana HC)
Facts: Accused involved in chain snatching incidents in Hyderabad. The trial court acquitted due to procedural lapses.
Judgment:
Telangana High Court reversed acquittal and emphasized that minor procedural lapses do not override strong material and circumstantial evidence.
Key Point:
Courts should not acquit chain snatchers on technicalities when substantive evidence is present.
6. Manoj @ Monu v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3956
Facts: Chain was snatched from a woman in broad daylight. Accused was arrested based on mobile tower location and recovered stolen chain.
Judgment:
Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld conviction, stating that digital evidence like tower location adds significant credibility when corroborated by recovery and eyewitnesses.
Key Point:
Technology-based evidence (CCTV, tower dump, call records) is increasingly accepted in chain snatching cases.
7. State of NCT of Delhi v. Naresh Kumar, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12072
Facts: The accused snatched a chain during a religious festival in Delhi. Claimed alibi that he was not present.
Judgment:
Alibi rejected due to credible identification and recovery. The High Court stressed that public festivals and large gatherings are hotspots for chain snatchers and police should take extra precautions.
Key Point:
Judicial recognition of chain snatching as a patterned urban crime requiring special policing.
V. PUNISHMENT AND BAIL POSITION
| Nature of Offence | Bailable? | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Theft (Sec 379 IPC) | Bailable | Up to 3 years + fine |
| Use of force (Sec 356 IPC) | Bailable | Up to 2 years |
| Robbery (Sec 392 IPC) | Non-bailable | 10 years – Life |
| Robbery with weapon (Sec 397 IPC) | Non-bailable | Minimum 7 years |
Bail is generally denied in cases involving robbery or injury, especially for repeat offenders.
VI. CHALLENGES IN CHAIN SNATCHING CASES
Lack of witnesses – Fear of testifying
Poor quality CCTV footage
Quick disposal of gold makes recovery hard
Plea bargaining sometimes leads to light punishment
Juveniles involved – Tried under JJ Act, leading to reduced sentences
VII. CONCLUSION
Chain snatching is a serious urban crime that undermines public safety, particularly for women. Indian courts have taken a tough stance, especially where force or injury is involved. The judicial trend reflects:
Strict interpretation under robbery laws
Acceptance of circumstantial and digital evidence
No leniency for habitual offenders
Increasing use of preventive detention and special laws by metro police
While legislation remains the same across India (via IPC), implementation, policing, and judicial attitude vary between metros, depending on the crime intensity and public response.
RELATED Blog
0 comments