The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has ruled that the sheer volume of criminal cases registered against an individual does not, by itself, provide sufficient legal grounds for the police to maintain a history-sheet and keep a citizen under constant surveillance. In a recent decision concerning a petition filed by an Udaipur resident, the court emphasized that such administrative actions must be based on a reasoned, objective assessment of an individual’s conduct rather than a mechanical count of historical FIRs.

The case involved Naresh Prajapat, a 48-year-old resident of Udaipur, who sought the quashing of a history-sheet opened against him by the Superintendent of Police in April 2025 . Prajapat argued that the police had acted arbitrarily by failing to account for the outcomes of the twelve cases registered against him between 1996 and 2025 . Notably, out of these dozen cases, only one had resulted in a conviction, which occurred nearly thirty years ago . The remainder had either been closed via compromise, resulted in acquittals, or concluded with negative final reports, while two matters remained under trial.

Scrutinizing the Criteria for Surveillance

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the police authorities failed to properly apply the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 . The argument was that the respondents had not demonstrated that the petitioner fulfilled the legal threshold for being classified as a " habitual offender ." Furthermore, the petitioner pointed to inconsistencies in the records maintained by the police, noting that the number of reported pending cases fluctuated between eight and ten in various communications, which he claimed signaled a broader failure of administrative application of mind .

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, maintained that the Superintendent of Police had acted within the scope of Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the 1965 regulations . The State argued that conviction was not an absolute, indispensable prerequisite for surveillance. Instead, they contended that the cumulative nature of the petitioner's criminal history, including serious allegations, necessitated ongoing monitoring to maintain public order and prevent future criminal activity.

Justice Sunil Beniwal, presiding over the matter, examined the governing legal framework. He noted that while the police possess the authority to maintain surveillance registers, this power is not unfettered. "The existence of police power to maintain surveillance must, therefore, be distinguished from the question whether its exercise in a particular case is justified by relevant material and a reasonable assessment of the person’s antecedents," the court observed.

Assessing the Weight of Past Antecedents

The court’s analysis highlighted that while a history of criminal activity is a factor, the recency and substantive outcomes of those proceedings are equally critical. The court referenced established precedents, including the judgment in Gul Mohammad Khan v. State of Rajasthan , which clarified that definitions within the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act of 1953 cannot be used to mechanically bypass the requirement for reasonable grounds when opening a history-sheet under the 1965 rules.

Justice Beniwal remarked on the significant gap in the petitioner's criminal record, noting, "Although twelve criminal cases have been referred to by the respondents, it is also indicated that the petitioner has suffered only one conviction, which dates back approximately thirty years, with no subsequent conviction." This gap, coupled with the high rate of acquittals and cases resulting in negative final reports, effectively undermined the State's justification for continued, indefinite surveillance.

The court reiterated that the numerical threshold of cases is not a substitute for the lawful exercise of administrative discretion . When the state relies on such a threshold, it must be balanced against the individual’s right to privacy and the protection against arbitrary state action , which are guarded by the principles of fairness.

Guidelines for Lawful Police Discretion

The court ultimately determined that the matter warranted a fresh, objective review. Rather than quashing the history-sheet outright, the Bench remitted the issue back to the Superintendent of Police , Udaipur. The court directed that the Superintendent perform a comprehensive review that considers the nature of the allegations, the current status of each pending case, the age of the records, and the petitioner's overall conduct.

The order requires the Superintendent to pass a detailed, reasoned decision after due application of mind . The court explicitly noted that it had not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the allegations themselves, nor on the ultimate entitlement of the petitioner to have the surveillance record closed permanently. However, it placed the burden on the police to demonstrate that the continued maintenance of the history-sheet is justified by current evidence of habitual criminal addiction.

Naresh Prajapat has been granted the liberty to file a detailed representation, supported by relevant legal documentation, to the Superintendent of Police within two weeks. The police authority is expected to dispose of this representation within eight weeks of receipt, ensuring the process remains transparent and compliant with the procedural safeguards outlined in the 1965 Rules. By mandating this reconsideration, the court has signaled that police surveillance must remain a proportionate tool, grounded in verifiable facts and recent behavior, rather than a legacy record of past investigations that have failed to secure convictions.