JAIPUR - In a hearing that stretched through the late morning, the Rajasthan High Court questioned the very basis on which people are labelled “habitual offenders” by local police stations. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, delivering the order with a calm but firm tone, struck down the Superintendent of Police’s (SP Bharatpur) direction to open a history sheet against 45-year-old Kaptan Singh of Ghatari village. The courtroom atmosphere, though routine at first, shifted when the judge began pointing out the inconsistencies in the police action.
Background
The petitioner had argued that although ten criminal cases were registered against him over different years, most had either resulted in acquittals or negative final reports. One case was quashed back in 2017, another remains pending, and just a single conviction-FIR No. 80/2014 from Jaipur-stands against him. His counsel insisted this was nowhere close to the legal threshold for being branded a “habitual offender,” which under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act requires three separate convictions after attaining adulthood.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Flags Faulty Trap Procedures While Granting Bail to Labour Officer Accused
During arguments, one of his lawyers remarked, almost in frustration, “How can a man with one conviction be treated like someone who has made crime his profession?” The judge took note.
Court’s Observations
Justice Dhand went step-by-step through the Police Rules of 1965, especially Rules 4.4 and 4.9, which govern entry into the surveillance register and the opening of history sheets. The court stressed that a history sheet can be opened only when there is a reasonable belief, supported by facts, that a person is habitually involved in crime - not merely because FIRs exist.
“The bench observed, ‘Mere belief is not enough; belief must rest on strong and reasonable grounds.’”
Read also:- Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court order in sensitive POCSO matter, questions absence
The judge also referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reminding the police that surveillance may have legal backing, but it cannot casually intrude upon a citizen’s dignity and liberty. Any such action, the court noted, has to meet constitutional standards under Articles 14 and 21.
On reviewing the SP’s order, the court found it entirely unreasoned. There was no explanation of how the police concluded that the petitioner was “habitually addicted to crime.” No analysis, no factual basis-just a mechanical reference to registered cases.
In a somewhat sharp observation, Justice Dhand noted that the police “do not possess a licence to enter the names of whosoever they like or dislike” in a surveillance register, adding that such power must be exercised with fairness, not on whims.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Grills Centre Over Indigo Flight Chaos, Demands Clear Accountability and Swift
Decision
Concluding that the petitioner does not fall within the statutory definition of a habitual offender and that the police acted without legal justification, the court quashed the SP’s order of 23 April 2025. It directed both the SP and the SHO of Bhusawar to immediately remove Kaptan Singh’s name from the surveillance register and any related history sheet entries, if already made.
With this, the writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of. The order ends where the court’s intervention ends - restoring the petitioner’s right to live without an unjustified police label.
Case Title: Kaptan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Others
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1134/2025
Case Type: Criminal Writ Petition
Decision Date: 04 December 2025
