The Rajasthan High Court while pulling up Police for opening chargesheet arbitrarily has remarked that they can't enter name of in the surveillance register based on their likes or dislikes.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, by which history sheet was ordered to be opened in terms of Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965.

The Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held, "The Rajasthan Police Rules do not empower the police to act in a manner that infringes upon citizen’s fundamental freedom. The police does not possess a licence to enter the names of whosoever they like or dislike, in the surveillance register. Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the surveillance register. They must be proclaimed offenders, previous convicts, or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not, can be categorized and entered in the surveillance register under the Police Rules."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Nikhlesh Katara, while the Respondent was represented by Public Prosecutor Amit Punia.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, in all, ten criminal cases were registered against the Petitioner during different years and he was convicted only in one.

Arguing that under these circumstances, the order impugned cannot be passed, in terms of Rule 4.92 of the Rules of 1965, he submitted that the word ‘habitual offender’ has not been defined under the Rules of 1965, but it has been defined in the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 whereby a ‘habitual offender’ means a person who has been convicted in more than three criminal cases on three different occasions, after attaining the age of 18 years.

The Counsel further submitted that till date, the Petitioner has not been convicted in more than a single case, therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be treated as an habitual offender and history sheet cannot be ordered to be opened against him.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at agreed with the Counsel for the Petitioner and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 wherein it was observed that a person subjected to surveillance, the object and limitation of such surveillance depends upon the character and antecedents of the person concerned

"The criteria for opening a history sheet is the subjective satisfaction of the authority and it has to be arrived at, on the reasonable belief or knowledge that the person, for whom the history is opened or retained is habitually addicted to aid or abet, the commission of crime, whether convicted or not etc. While arriving at the subjective satisfaction, the activities of such persons which are informative and useful, based on the facts ascertained by the police from the date of last entry shall be made month-wise for close watch of characters and quarterly for non-close watch of characters. The discretion of the authorities has to be exercised, according to the rules of reason and justice and not according to private opinion, according to law and not humour. It is to be not arbitrarily vague, fanciful, but legal and regular and it must be exercised within the limit to which an honest man competent to discharge of his office or to confine himself", the Court observed.

It emphasised that opening of ‘History-sheet’ must be on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the competent authority and subjective satisfaction must be arrived at in accordance with legal provisions vis-à-vis well reasoned and speaking decision, failing which it would be hit by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, being arbitrary in nature and not permissible in law.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Kaptan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan (2025:RJ-JP:49285)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Nikhlesh Katara, Advocate Vishnu Kumar Sharma

Respondent- Public Prosecutor Amit Punia

Click here to read/ download Order



Rajasthan High CourtJustice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Sheetal Joon