History Sheet Needs Reasoned Belief of Habitual Criminality, Not a Count of FIRs: Rajasthan High Court

By an order of 23.04.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur directed that a history sheet be opened against the petitioner under Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (para 1). His counsel said ten criminal cases had been registered against him: five ended in negative final reports, one FIR was quashed by the High Court in 2017, two ended in acquittal after trial, one trial was pending, and only one case had resulted in conviction (para 2). Relying on the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, he argued that one conviction did not make him a habitual offender (para 2). The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition but could not controvert these submissions (para 3).

Rule 4.9 requires a history sheet for every person entered in the surveillance register, and lets an officer not below the rank of Inspector open one for any other person reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime, or an aider or abettor of such a person (paras 5, 7). Rule 4.4 confines register entries to listed classes, such as proclaimed persons, repeat convicts and persons reasonably believed to be habitual offenders (paras 6, 8). Under the 1953 Act, the Court said, a habitual offender needs three convictions; the petitioner had one, and his other cases were closed, ended in acquittal or quashing, or were pending (para 9). The police have no licence to enter whomever they like or dislike in the surveillance register (para 10). Citing Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court said Article 21 protects against restrictions imposed by calculated measures (para 11). Discretion must follow reason and law, not private opinion (para 12), and the police's belief must rest on strong and reasonable grounds; mere belief is not enough (para 13). Here the order relied simply on registered cases and gave no reasons (para 15).