Court Reminds Police that Mere Number of Cases or Absence of Conviction Is Insufficient for Surveillance; Orders Fresh Assessment in Light of Outcomes and Recency
Udaipur, October 15, 2026: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant judgment delivered by Justice Sunil Beniwal, has set aside the order sustaining the police history-sheet against Naresh Prajapat, remanding the matter back to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, for fresh consideration. The Court underscored that while the opening and continuance of police surveillance history-sheets under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, do not mandatorily require prior convictions, the competent authority must base such decisions on reasonable grounds with a reasoned order, taking into account the nature, outcome, and recency of criminal cases.
The petitioner, Naresh Prajapat, challenged the continuation of his history-sheet on grounds that out of twelve criminal cases registered against him over the last three decades, only one had resulted in conviction approximately thirty years ago. The remaining cases had either ended in acquittals, compromises, negative final reports, or were still pending trial. Prajapat's counsel argued that the police authorities acted arbitrarily and mechanically by relying on the mere registration of cases without proper evaluation of their outcomes or justification for continued surveillance.
Opposing the petition, the State contended that Prajapat's multiple criminal antecedents, including serious offences and ongoing trials, justified the history-sheet under Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. The public prosecutor emphasized that conviction is not an indispensable prerequisite to initiate or maintain such surveillance.
Upon hearing both parties and analyzing the material, the Court referred to several precedents, including recent decisions in Gul Mohammad Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Kaptan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, emphasizing that the police's belief in a person's habitual criminality must rest on reasonable grounds rather than mere suspicion or mechanical counting of FIRs. The Court recognized that although the petitioner had one old conviction, the absence of further convictions coupled with the outcomes of other cases required a fresh, objective assessment of whether the surveillance history-sheet should continue.
The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to reconsider the matter within eight weeks, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation with relevant documents within two weeks. The Superintendent was instructed to examine the petitioner's criminal antecedents, case outcomes, present status, and any material evidencing habitual criminal activity before passing a reasoned order in accordance with the law.
Importantly, the Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the criminal allegations or the ultimate entitlement to have the history-sheet closed, thereby preserving the investigatory prerogative of the police within lawful bounds.
This judgment reinforces the principle that police powers to maintain surveillance must be exercised judiciously, respecting the fundamental rights of individuals and ensuring non-arbitrariness in administrative action under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Bottom Line:
Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 Rules 4.4 and 4.9 - Opening and continuance of history-sheet - Mere number of criminal cases or absence of conviction is not by itself conclusive - Conviction is not an indispensable prerequisite, but competent authority must have reasonable grounds and pass a reasoned order after considering nature, recency, outcome and present status of cases - Matter remitted for reconsideration of continuance of history-sheet.
Statutory provision(s):
Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 Rules 4.4, 4.9; Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Naresh Prajapat v. State of Rajasthan, (Raj) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001297
