Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jagdish Bidiasar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:36482) on 12 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:36482]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4765/2021

Jagdish Bidiasar S/o Shri Hukmaram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Son Nagar (Tantwas), Police Station Pachodi, Nagaur.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State, Through PP
2.       The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
3.       The Station House Officer, PS Panchodi, District Nagaur.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Falgun Buch
                                    Mr. Vasudev Gaur
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, Public
                                    Prosecutor



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

12/08/2025

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS (Section

482 of Cr.P.C.) has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the history-sheet opened against the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and all proceedings taken against the petitioner may kindly declared illegal and be quashed and set aside."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on

29.07.2021, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, issued a letter

directing the Station House Officer to open a History-Sheeter

offenders, keep him under surveillance and upload the data on the

police website.

[2025:RJ-JD:36482] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4765/2021]

3. The details of cases registered against the petitioner are as

under:-

SI No. FIR No./date 1. 95/07 14.09.07 2. 70/06 24.09.06 3. 131/05 04.04.05 4. 143/12 18.10.12 IPC 5. 79/13 21.07.13 6. 90/13 15.08.13 7. 37/13 15.08.13 8. 64/17 25.05.17 9. 355/20 23.12.20 10. 94/21 01.05.21 11 200/21 29.07.21 IPC 12 217/21 09.08.21

Offence U/s Police Status Station 392, 397, 447, Panchu Pending in Court 427, 336, 34 Nokha Arms Act 3/25, 5/25 Arms Panchodi Acquitted on Act Nagaur 18.03.2009 341, 323, 34 Nokha Convicted on IPC Bikaner 20.10.2015 8/15, 8/27 Kuchera Pending trial NDPS Act & 420, Nagaur 467, 468, 471 147, 148, 149, Panchodi Acquitted on 307 IPC Nagaur 15.11.2018 143, 341, 336, Panchodi Acquitted on 427 IPC Nagaur 15.11.2018 341, 323, 325 Sadar Nagaur Acquitted IPC compromise on 19.08.2019 302, 120B IPC Panchodi Final Report Naguar filed on 22.10.2017 (No case made out) 384, 504 IPC Mandore Stay by Hon'ble Jodhpur High Court pending investigation 341, 323, 504, Khenvsar, Pending 506 IPC Nagaur investigation 143, 341, 323, Khenvsar, Pending 384, 427, 506 Nagaur investigation 341, 323, 384, Khenvsar, Pending 506 IPC Nagaur investigation id="p_7">4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule

4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the history-

sheet can be opened if the name of a person is entered in the

surveillance Register and if person falls under the essential

[2025:RJ-JD:36482] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4765/2021]

Ingredients provided in Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 (hereinafter

to be referred as 'the Rules of 1965') as well as definition of the

Habitual offender under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act,

1953. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the present

petitioner is not falling under the definition of Habitual offender

and also does not fall under the Rule 4.4 and Rule 4.9 of the Rules

of 1965.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as

per Rule 4.9 of the Rules of 1965, the concerned officer should

have reasonable belief that a person is habitually addicted to

crime or to be aider or abettor; the petitioner does not even fall

under the category of Habitual Offender.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and

submitted that the petitioner was declared as the history sheeter,

which is valid in eye of the law and the concerned Superintendent

of Police came to such conclusion, after duly looking into the

overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the

material available before him.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at Bar as well as

perused the record of the case.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sanjay Vs.

State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No.792/2016) along with other connected matters decided on

23.01.2023, as also in the case of Rakesh Alias Rekhraj Vs.

State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No.6584/2022) decided on 23.01.2023, which were also

pertaining to opening of the history-sheet, observed as under:-

[2025:RJ-JD:36482] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4765/2021]

"While considering Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as well as the judgment cited, this Court observes that for sustaining a history-sheet against a person, either a person has to have three cases of convictions which would bring him within the domain of the definition of "Habitual Offender" so that he could be declared as a history-sheeter, by entering his name in the surveillance register, or as per Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, it is also stated that anything reasonable could be the criteria for determination of entering a person's name in the surveillance register, as per his being habitual to commit crime.

For the sake of brevity, this Court arrives at the following uniform criteria to determine whether an entry of a person's name in the surveillance register is justified:

(a) A person having three consecutive convictions against him, and being a habitual offender, shall be liable for continuance of entry of his name in the surveillance register, while declaring him as a history-sheeter; however, if the convictions are 15 years or before, then the history sheet/entry of his name in the surveillance register will not fall in this criteria of sustenance.

OR

b) If a person is having more than ten cases against him, in totality, irrespective of the result, his name, at the discretion of the concerned authority, entered in the surveillance register, while declaring hima history-sheeter, is justified and deserves continuance; but if a person is having more than ten cases and all of them are 10 years old, then the history sheet/entry of his name in the surveillance register, will not fall in this criteria of sustenance.

As an upshot of the above, this Court observes that a history-sheet shall be amenable to judicial scrutiny as above, and thus, while keeping into consideration Rule 4.4and Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 and the precedent law, this Court is of the opinion that the entry of a person's name in the surveillance register/history sheet, on count of his being a habitual offender, shall not be interfered with, if there are three consecutive convictions against such person, or such an entry in the history sheet/surveillance register shall not be interfered with, if a person is having more than 10 cases, in totality, against him, irrespective of the result. (The condition of 10 cases shall not apply, if there are no cases in last 10 years; similarly, if the convictions are 15 years or before, then again the exclusion of the person's name from the history sheet/surveillance register shall be warranted).

This Court thus observes that if a person suffers from any of the above disqualifications, then he shall be disentitled from claiming relief against being declared as a history-sheeter. It is relevant to note that in Diwan Singh (supra), while granting relief to the petitioner therein, it was observed that the petitioner therein was a senior citizen against whom the last conviction was in the year 2003, and the last case registered against him was in the year 2007,

[2025:RJ-JD:36482] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4765/2021]

while his case had come up for final adjudication in the year 2022.

9. Thus, this Court, in the light of the judgments rendered in

Sanjay (supra) and Rakesh Alias Rekhraj (supra), allows the

instant petition; accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the

impugned order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the Superintendent

of Police, Nagaur along with entire proceedings pursuant thereto,

the respondents are directed to strike out the name of the

petitioner from the history-sheet maintained at the concerned

police station.

10. Stay petition as well as all the pending applications stand

disposed of.