[2026:RJ-JD:2033]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1523/2025 Bheru Singh S/o Shri Pemp Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Badi Sid, Tehsil Baap, District Phalodi, At Present 62A, Rameshwar Nagar, P.s. Basni, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur.

3. Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Phalodi.

5. Station House Officer, Police Station Baap, District Phalodi.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy. G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

09/01/2026

1. This criminal writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“(i) The impugned history-sheet dated 25.02.2011 opened against the petitioner at Police Station Basni, Jodhpur and subsequently transferred to the Police Station Phalodi may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondents authorities may kindly be directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the surveillance register.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that a history-sheet was opened against the petitioner at Police Station Basni, Jodhpur on 25.02.2011. The said action was initiated after an inordinate and unexplained lapse of nearly thirteen years from the registration of an earlier case under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act in the year 1998, in which the petitioner was merely visited with a nominal penalty of ₹200/- vide order dated 31.07.1999. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also implicated in another case registered at Police Station Basni vide FIR No. 140/2000 under Sections 451, 147, 149, 427 and 323 IPC; however, the competent court extended the benefit of probation in the said matter, which, in law, does not amount to a conviction with substantive sentence, particularly when he maintained the peace in accordance with the bond.

3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner in the District Jodhpur are as under:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the history-sheet can be opened if the name of a person is entered in the surveillance Register and if person falls under the essential ingredients provided in Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1965’) as well as definition of the Habitual offender under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petitioner is not falling under the definition of Habitual offender and also does not fall under the Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rules of 1965.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Rule 4.9 of the Rules of 1965, the concerned officer should have reasonable belief that a person is habitually addicted to crime or to be aider or abettor; the petitioner does not even fall under the category of Habitual Offender.

6. On the other hand, learned Dy.G.A. opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was declared as the history sheeter, which is valid in eye of the law and the concerned Superintendent of Police came to such conclusion, after duly looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the material available before him.

7. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc.