Opening History-Sheet Under UP Police Regulations Requires Evidence of Habitual Criminality, Not Just One Old Case: Allahabad High Court - 2025-08-29

Allahabad High Court Quashes History-Sheet Opened on Basis of Single, 8-Year-Old Case

Allahabad, India – The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the principle that police surveillance through a 'history-sheet' cannot be initiated based on a single, long-past criminal case. The court ruled that such an action requires substantial evidence to reasonably believe a person is a habitual offender, quashing an order by the Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar.

The division bench, comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Santosh Rai , allowed the writ petition filed by Mohammad Wajir, directing the police to close his history-sheet and cease surveillance.

Case Background

The petitioner, Mohammad Wajir, challenged an order dated June 23, 2025, from the Superintendent of Police (SP), Siddharthnagar, which had rejected his representation to close his 'Class A' history-sheet (No. 18A).

The police had opened the history-sheet in February 2024, citing a single criminal case registered against Wajir in 2016 under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. Wajir had previously approached the High Court, which directed the SP to consider his representation. The subsequent rejection of this representation prompted the current writ petition.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner's Counsel (Sri Sunil Kumar Singh): Argued that Wajir was a respectable citizen with no criminal history apart from the solitary case from 2016, in which he is out on bail and the trial is pending. He contended that opening a history-sheet, a measure reserved for habitual criminals, based on a single, eight-year-old incident was a violation of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations (Paras 228, 229, 231, 233). Counsel emphasized that the purpose of surveillance is to monitor individuals likely to engage in repeated criminal activity, a criterion Wajir did not meet.

• State's Counsel (Learned A.G.A.): Defended the police action, stating that the U.P. Police Regulations grant the authorities the power to open history-sheets against habitual offenders or suspects based on collected information. However, the State also conceded that no other cognizable or non-cognizable offence had been registered against the petitioner besides the 2016 case.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

The High Court meticulously examined Paras 228 and 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which govern the opening of history-sheets.

• Para 228 specifies that history-sheets should be opened "only for persons who are or like to become habitual criminal or abettors of such criminals." Class A sheets are designated for specific offenses like dacoity, burglary, and cattle theft.

• Para 240 allows for opening a history-sheet based on "suspicion," conviction, or acquittal. However, the court stressed that such suspicion must be based on "cogent and reliable material."

The bench observed that the SP's order mechanically cited these regulations without applying them to the facts. The court noted:

"In the instant case the Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar opened History-sheet no.18A category on the basis of sole case... Since only one case has been registered against the petitioner before 8 years of the incident in the year 2016, it cannot be said that the petitioner is habitual offender of cattle theft..."

Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments like Malak Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Haryana , the High Court reiterated that police do not possess an "unbridled, uncanalised power" to place citizens under surveillance. The judgment emphasized that police "do not possess a licence to enter the names of whoever they like or dislike in the surveillance register."

The court found a clear lack of material to substantiate that the petitioner was involved in habitual offenses as envisaged by the regulations.

Final Verdict and Implications

Concluding its analysis, the court declared that there was no sufficient ground for the police to entertain a reasonable belief that surveillance was required.

"We are satisfied that there was no sufficient ground to entertain a reasonable belief that surveillance was required in the case of the petitioner. There exists no evidence to support the act of opening of the history sheet No. 18-A... and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed."

The writ petition was allowed, and the court issued the following directives: 1. The order dated June 23, 2025, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar, is quashed. 2. The respondents are directed to close history-sheet No. 18-A of the petitioner. 3. The police must not keep the petitioner under surveillance based on the now-quashed history-sheet.

This ruling serves as a crucial check on the arbitrary use of police surveillance powers, underscoring that fundamental freedoms cannot be curtailed without a justifiable and legally sound basis.