“Not Been Convicted Twice”: Rajasthan HC Orders Removal Of Man's Name From Police Surveillance Register After Being Booked In 7 Cases

The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court recently directed the State to delete the name of a man–booked in seven cases–from the police's Surveillance Register on the ground that he had not been convicted twice in the cases pending against him.

Perusing through the record, judgments cited by the parties and Rajasthan Police Rules, Justice Manoj Kumar Garg in his order said, “Court is of the opinion that it is a consistent position of the precedent law that where a person is not convicted twice in the cases pending against him, then the entry of the name of the person concerned from the surveillance register was to be removed.”

The Court was hearing a plea by a man challenging the order of the Superintendent of Police Nagaur directing to open the man's history sheet. He said the Superintendent of Police while acting in an arbitrary manner has ordered to open history sheet of the petitioner curtailing his right to life and liberty, therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside.

Total seven cases were lodged against the petitioner out of which, in two of them the petitioner was acquitted; in one case final report was filed by the police, in another investigation was pending and the rest of the cases were pending trial.

The counsel for the petitioner made a reference to Rule 4.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 dealing with the Surveillance Register wherein the history sheet is maintained and said that the Petitioner did not fall within the ambit of the requirements of this Rule. Rule 4.4 pertains to the surveillance register which is a document maintained by the police wherein names of such persons may be added at the SP's discretion which includes–persons who have been convicted twice, or more than twice, persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not, persons under security under sections 109 or 110, code of Criminal Procedure etc.

On the contrary, it was argued on behalf of the State that the petitioner was a habitual offender and all the seven cases registered against him were under different sections.

The court observed, "This Court has also read the aforequoted Rule 4.4 of the Rules of 1965, and finds that in the present facts and circumstances, the said Rule 4.4 is not applicable for maintaining the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register. The fact of the petitioner having seven cases is not denied, however, he has been acquitted in two cases and has not been convicted twice".

In this background, the petition was allowed and directions were issued to "forthwith" remove the name of the petitioner from the Surveillance Register

Case Title: Rajmal Kala v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 411

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Nishant Bora

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav

Click Here To Read/Download Order