Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Rekha Borana, J
Iqbal Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1662/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bharat Singh Rathore
For the Respondents: Hanuman Prajapati

A history sheet can be opened or maintained under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, based on a reasonable belief of habitual criminal addiction, regardless of formal conviction. The definition of 'habitual offender' from the 1953 Act is not applicable to these rules.

Headnote:The case involves a challenge to an order reopening the petitioner's history sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (1965 Rules) after it had been placed in a 'silent bag'. The petitioner argued that as he had been acquitted or discharged in all recent criminal cases, continued surveillance was unjustified. The State contended that the petitioner was a habitual offender involved in communal incidents, justifying continued police surveillance. The primary issue was whether the definition of 'habitual offender' under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 (1953 Act) must be imported into the 1965 Rules, and whether police surveillance requires criminal convictions. The court held that the 1965 Rules constitute a self-contained code for surveillance and do not require import of the 1953 Act's definition of 'habitual offender'. It clarified that 'reasonable belief' of a person being habitually addicted to crime, rather than formal conviction, is the standard for maintaining a history sheet. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of the rules relating to the potential closure of history sheets for individuals no longer active in crime.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The definition of "habitual offender" under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 cannot be imported into the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (!) (!) (!) . - A history sheet may be opened for any person who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime, without requiring a conviction (!) (!) . - The standard for maintaining a history sheet is a "reasonable belief" of habitual criminal addiction, not formal conviction (!) (!) (!) . - The petitioner's history sheet was reopened based on reasonable belief of involvement in communal riots and repeated criminal activities in 2012 (!) (!) . - The petitioner was acquitted or discharged in all recent cases, impacting the justification for continued surveillance (!) (!) . - Rule 4.12 and Rule 4.13 provide for transferring or destroying the history sheet if the person is no longer addicted to crime and has been of good behavior for seven years (!) (!) . - The court laid down criteria for sustaining a history sheet, including multiple convictions or a large number of cases, balanced against time elapsed (!) (!) (!) . - The petitioner's case must be reconsidered in light of the rules on closure of history sheets for individuals no longer actively involved in crime (!) (!) .

What is the definition of a "habitual offender" under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965?

How to determine whether a history sheet can be opened or continued under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965?

What are the criteria for closing or continuing a history sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965?

Table of Content
1. basis for reopening a history sheet involves review of past criminal involvement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contentions regarding surveillance validity, habitual offender status, and police discretion. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. rules for maintenance of history sheets and habitual offender definitions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. final outcome directing administrative review of surveillance orders. (Para 26 , 27)

Reportable

Judgment

Judgment reserved on 18/05/2026

Judgment pronounced on 05/06/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2026 raising a challenge to order dated 24.04.2014 (Annexure-2) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, whereby the history sheet of the petitioner stood reopened from the silent bag and he was placed under active surveillance.

2. The facts are that the history sheet of petitioner Iqbal Khan initially was opened vide order dated 28.03.1986 because of six criminal cases having been registered against him between the years 1986 to 1997. However, as all the matters stood compromised and the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of said compromise, the history sheet was placed in the silent bag vide order dated 19.05.2005. However, subsequently, FIR Nos.101 and 103, of the same date i.e., 15.08.2012 were registered against the petitioner at Police Station Anadara, District Sirohi for offences under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, 148 and 149, IPC & Section 3(1)(1), SC/ST Act and Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 427, 505, 353, 332, 353A and 295A, IPC & Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, respectively. In view of the said FIRs being registered against the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi passed impugned order dated 24.04.2014 directing to reopen the history sheet. It is the said order which is under challenge in the present petition.

3. It is an admitted fact that qua FIR No.101/2012, the petitioner stood acquitted on 25.09.2019 while giving him the benefit of doubt. So far as the FIR No.103/2012 is concerned, after the charge sheet being filed, the parties compromised. In terms of the said compromise, an application for withdrawal of the prosecution was filed on behalf of the State under Section 321 , Cr.P.C. which however was dismissed by the learned Court. The said order stood challenged in Criminal Revision Petition No.820/2025 and the revision petition stood allowed vide order dated 08.07.2025. As a consequence, the petitioner stood discharged from all the charges.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner having been acquitted/discharged in both the matters, the respondents have been regularly issuing preventive summons in every six months to the petitioner under Sections 108, 110 Cr.P.C./ 126, 129 BNSS. As a consequence, the petitioner is required to execute a bond in every six months and the same is causing a serious mental harassment to the petitioner.

5. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has since reformed and has been actively involved in various social welfare activities and has even been issued appreciation letters by various social organizations. Reopening of the history sheet of the petitioner is in contravention to Rule 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1965').

6. Counsel while relying upon the Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench, in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1134/2025 (decided on 04.12.2025) submitted that the petitioner having never been convicted, no history sheet qua him could have been opened. Further, the petitioner cannot be termed to a 'habitual offender'.

7. Counsel while further relying upon the Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.792/2016 and other connected matters (decided on 23.01.2023) submitted that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document