The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, to reconsider the continuation of a history-sheet and police surveillance against a man after examining the outcomes of 12 criminal cases registered against him over nearly three decades.
Justice Sunil Beniwal passed the order, while disposing of a criminal petition filed by Naresh Prajapat. The Court observed that the number of cases registered against a person cannot, by itself, determine whether continued police surveillance is justified. The authorities must also consider the nature of the allegations, the outcomes of the proceedings and the relevant material on record.
Background
Naresh Prajapat approached the High Court challenging a history-sheet opened against him by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, through an order dated April 1, 2025. A history-sheet is a police record maintained to monitor individuals who meet the conditions prescribed under the applicable police rules.
The petitioner argued that the authorities had failed to properly assess the status of the criminal cases before placing him under surveillance. According to his counsel, he had been convicted in only one case, while the remaining proceedings had ended in acquittals, compromises or negative final reports, or were still pending trial.
The State opposed the petition, maintaining that 12 criminal cases had been registered against Prajapat between 1996 and 2025. It argued that conviction was not essential for opening a history-sheet where the circumstances reasonably indicated habitual criminal activity.
The Court examined Rules 4.4 and 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, along with previous judicial decisions governing police surveillance and history-sheets.
It noted that the petitioner had suffered only one conviction, dating back approximately 30 years, with no subsequent conviction. Of the remaining cases, four had resulted in negative final reports, three in acquittals and two in compromises, while two cases were pending trial.
The Court clarified that conviction is not an absolute prerequisite for opening a history-sheet. However, the competent authority must have reasonable grounds for believing that the person falls within the relevant category under the rules.
The Court observed,
“The number of cases registered against the petitioner, by itself, cannot be determinative, rather the nature of the allegations, the outcome and present status of the criminal proceedings, the recency of the cases and the material bearing upon the petitioner’s alleged habitual criminal activity are all relevant considerations.”
It further emphasised that the continuation of surveillance requires an assessment of the relevant circumstances and subsequent developments in criminal proceedings.
The High Court remitted the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, for fresh consideration under the applicable rules. The officer was directed to examine the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the status and outcomes of the cases, and the justification for continuing the history-sheet before passing a reasoned order.
The Court permitted Prajapat to submit a representation with supporting documents within two weeks. The Superintendent of Police was directed to consider the representation objectively and preferably pass an appropriate order within eight weeks of receiving it.
The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations underlying the criminal cases or on whether the petitioner was entitled to have the history-sheet closed.
The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Naresh Prajapat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6973/2026
Judge: Justice Sunil Beniwal
Decision Date: October 15, 2026
