Criminal history sheet may be opened without convictions if reasonable belief of habitual addiction to crime exists.

The petitioner’s history sheet was originally opened in 1986 following six criminal cases. In 2005, as these matters were compromised or resulted in acquittal, the history sheet was moved to the "silent bag"

On 24.04.2014, the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, ordered the reopening of the history sheet and placed the petitioner under active surveillance following two new FIRs (Nos. 101/2012 and 103/2012) involving charges of attempted murder and communal rioting

Though the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in FIR No. 101/2012 and discharged in FIR No. 103/2012 by 2019/2025, the history sheet remained active, leading to recurring preventive summons. The petitioner challenged the 2014 reopening order in this 2026 writ petition, claiming reformation and social welfare involvement

1. Whether the definition of "habitual offender" under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 (requiring three convictions) applies to the opening of a history sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965

2. Whether the reopening of the petitioner’s history sheet in 2014 was legally sustainable despite the absence of convictions

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the closure or transfer of his history sheet to the personal file due to the passage of time and subsequent acquittals

Rule 4.4(3)(b) and Rule 4.9(2) of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, allow opening a history sheet for persons "reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime" regardless of whether they have been convicted

Supreme Court precedents in Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police [AIR 1966 SC 1766] and Malak Singh v. State of P & H [AIR 1981 SC 760] establish that "reasonable belief" of a police officer based on reasonable grounds is sufficient to justify surveillance

Laxmi Narayan Meena v. State of Rajasthan clarifies that the restrictive definition of "habitual offender" in the Act of 1953 (requiring three convictions) does not apply to the Rules of 1965

Procedural safeguards for closure are governed by Rules 4.12 and 4.13 of the 1965 Rules and the uniform criteria for sustenance of history sheets laid down in Sanjay v. State of Rajasthan

The Court reasoned that the 2014 order to reopen the history sheet was valid at the time because the petitioner, previously a suspect, became involved in fresh criminal activities (communal riots and serious offences under the IPC) in 2012

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that three convictions were mandatory, noting that Rule 4.4(3)(b) explicitly includes those "whether they have been convicted or not". The "reasonable belief" formed by the SP in 2014 was deemed justified to prevent further offences

As of 2026, the petitioner had been acquitted or discharged in the 2012 cases and no further criminal involvement was reported. Under Rule 4.12, a history sheet should be transferred to a personal file if a person is no longer addicted to crime, and under Rule 4.13, files may be destroyed after seven years of good behavior. The case met the "10-year rule" established in Sanjay v. State, where entries 10 years old without subsequent convictions merit reconsideration

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, to consider the petitioner’s case in light of Rules 4.12 and 4.13 and the criteria in Sanjay v. State, and to pass appropriate orders regarding the closure or continuance of the history sheet