History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High Court

"Rule 4.4(3)(b) does not presuppose any conviction, rather, it incorporates a specific stipulation that conviction is not mandatory. In that event, the definition of ‘habitual offender’ as provided under the Act of 1953 which presupposes three convictions, definitely cannot be applied to the said rule," Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the opening of a history sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, is not contingent upon the definition of a 'habitual offender' found in the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953.

A bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed that while a history sheet can be opened based on the "reasonable belief" of a police officer regarding a person's addiction to crime—even without a single conviction—the authorities must consider the closure of such surveillance if the individual maintains good behavior for seven years.

The petitioner, Gul Mohammad Khan, challenged a 2014 order by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, which reopened his history sheet and placed him under active surveillance following his alleged involvement in communal riots. Though the history sheet was originally opened in 2000 and moved to the "silent bag" in 2005, it was reactivated after three FIRs were registered against him in 2012. The petitioner sought the quashing of this surveillance, noting that he had since been acquitted or discharged in all those cases and had reformed.

The primary question before the Court was whether the definition of a "habitual offender" under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, which requires three convictions, applies to the opening of history sheets under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. The Court was also called upon to determine if a history sheet must be closed if the subject has not been involved in criminal activity for a prolonged period.

'Habitual Offender' Under Police Rules Distinct From 1953 Act

The Court clarified that Rule 4.4(3)(b) of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, specifically allows for the names of persons to be entered in the Surveillance Register who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders, "whether they have been convicted or not." Justice Borana emphasized that the requirement of three convictions under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, cannot be imported into the Police Rules.

The bench noted that the Rules of 1965 do not provide a specific definition of "habitual offender," and in the absence of such a definition, the term should be understood in its ordinary sense rather than being restricted by other statutes. The Court held that the intention of the legislature was to allow police surveillance based on a disposition formed by the repetition of crimes, rather than waiting for multiple judicial convictions.

"In absence of definition of 'habitual offender' under the Rules of 1965, it can be taken from dictionary and not from the Act of 1953... this court cannot apply the definition given under any other Act."

Reasonable Belief vs. Mere Suspicion In Opening History Sheets

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dhanji Ram Sharma vs. Superintendent of Police, the Court observed that a "reasonable belief" by a police officer is sufficient to justify the opening of a history sheet. However, this belief must be grounded in objective facts and cannot be a mere whim. The Court noted that the suspect may or may not have been convicted of any crime to warrant such surveillance.

The bench further cited the case of Malak Singh vs. State of P & H, where the Apex Court refused to interfere with the entry of a name in a surveillance register even after a conviction was set aside on appeal. The High Court reiterated that the power to maintain surveillance is an investigative and preventive necessity under Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861, to maintain public peace.

"A habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime is one who is criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repetition of crimes. Reasonable belief of the police officer that the suspect is a habitual offender... is sufficient to justify action."

Mandatory Review Of History Sheets After Seven Years Of Good Conduct

While upholding the validity of the 2014 order reopening the history sheet due to the petitioner's involvement in communal riots at that time, the Court highlighted the importance of reformation. It pointed to Rule 4.12(1) and Rule 4.13(4) of the 1965 Rules, which provide for the transfer of a history sheet to a personal file and its eventual destruction if a person is no longer addicted to crime.

The Court observed that the petitioner had not been involved in any criminal activity subsequent to 2012 and had been acquitted or discharged in all previous matters. Justice Borana remarked that if an individual demonstrates continuous good behavior for seven years, the police authorities are required to consider the closure of the history sheet and the destruction of the personal file.

"Rule 4.13(4) of the Rules of 1965 provides that if a person has been of good behavior continuously for seven years, his personal file may be ordered to be destructed."

Application Of Uniform Criteria For Sustenance Of Surveillance

The Court also referred to the uniform criteria laid down in the coordinate bench judgment of Sanjay vs. State of Rajasthan. This criteria suggests that if a person has ten or more cases against them, but all cases are more than 10 years old, the history sheet generally does not deserve sustenance. The Court found that the petitioner’s case squarely fell within the scope of requiring a fresh review by the authorities.

Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, to consider the petitioner's case for the closure of his history sheet. The SP was directed to pass appropriate orders in light of the petitioner’s long-standing good conduct and the specific provisions of Rules 4.12 and 4.13 of the 1965 Rules.

The Court concluded that while the initial reopening of the history sheet in 2014 was not faulty given the circumstances then, its continued maintenance over a decade later—despite the petitioner's clean record since 2012—demanded a legal reassessment.

Date of Decision: 05 June 2026