The Rajasthan High Court has held that the mere number of criminal cases registered against a person cannot by itself justify continued police surveillance.

It thus directed the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, to reconsider the continuance of a history-sheet opened against a man who had 12 cases registered against him but had suffered only one conviction, nearly 30 years ago.

The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal ordered,

"While undertaking such consideration, the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur shall examine the petitioner's criminal antecedents, the outcome and present status of the cases registered against him, the relevant material on record and the justification for continuance of the history-sheet and surveillance entry, and shall pass a reasoned order after due application of mind."

The Court clarified that while conviction is not a prerequisite for opening a history-sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules 1965 (the “Rules”), competent authority needs to have reasonable grounds for believing that the person fell within the relevant category prescribed within the Rules

“The numerical threshold cannot be read in isolation from the applicable Rules of 1965 or as eliminating the need for a lawful exercise of discretion. The decision thus underscores the importance of examining not merely the existence of criminal cases, but also their number, recency and the surrounding circumstances. It does not, however, support the proposition that acquittal, compromise or the absence of conviction invariably bars the opening or continuance of a history sheet in every case.”

The Court was hearing a petition seeking quashing of the history sheet opened against the petitioner based on the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur.

It was the case of the petitioner that the respondents did not appreciate the nature of the cases registered against him, and their respective outcomes. It was argued that mere registration of criminal cases, without due consideration of their outcome and nature of allegations could not be sufficient to justify opening a history-sheet.

On the contrary, the respondents submitted that 12 cases were registered against the petitioner between 1996 and 2025, involving serious offences, and opening a history sheet was not dependent solely on conviction.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the relevant provisions in the Rules as well as past orders of the Court in this regard, and opined,

“…number of cases cannot be treated as a substitute for lawful and reasoned exercise of discretion. The nature and recency of the cases, their outcomes, any subsequent criminal involvement and the material actually considered by the competent authority must be assessed in their entirety.”

In this background, the Court highlighted that in the present case, the petitioner had suffered only one conviction that too 30 years ago, with no subsequent conviction. Further, in the remaining cases, 4 resulted in negative final reports; 3 in acquittals, and 2 were pending trial.

Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, for reconsideration of opening the history sheet against the petitioner.