# Rama Shankar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 70
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7463 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rama-shankar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53751
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration

Whether the opening of the History-sheet by the
concerned police authority on the basis of one
case which was registered way back in the year
2008 and finally decided in favour the petitioner
acquitting him vide the aforesaid judgment and
order dated 06.04.2022 is justified under law
without assigning any cogent reason in the light
of Regulation(s) 228 & 240 of the U.P. Police
Regulations
8 All. Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
71
Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14,
21 & 226 - The Uttar Pradesh Police
Regulations-Regulations 228 & 240 - No
criminal
case
is
lying
against
the
petitioner
-
Petitioner
cannot
be
bracketed as confirmed or professional
criminal - Regulation 228 of the U.P.
Police Regulation casts duty to open the
History-sheet only on the basis of credible
material - No 'subjective satisfaction' or
'reasonable belief that the petitioner is a
confirmed or professional criminal or
habitual
offender
-
Opening
of
the
'History-sheet' should not be a mechanical
exercise - Liberty to the petitioner to
prefer a comprehensive representation
afresh before the Superintendent of Police
- Petition disposed of.

Held- Petitioner cannot be bracketed as
confirmed or professional criminal - Regulation
228 of the U.P. Police Regulation casts duty on
the Police Officer to construe the regulation
strictly and open the History-sheet only on the
basis of credible material - Record available
before this Court does not indicate any such
order to show the 'subjective satisfaction' or
'reasonable belief' of the Superintendent of
Police that the petitioner is a confirmed or
professional criminal or habitual offender - The
opening of the 'History-sheet' of any person
should not be a mechanical exercise, rather the
same should be careful, proper and thorough as
it is directly connected with the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India - Opening of 'History-sheet'
must be on the basis of subjective satisfaction
of the competent authority, and the subjective
satisfaction must be armed with legal provisions
vis-a-vis well reasoned and speaking decision,
failing which it would be hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India being arbitrary in nature
and not permissible in law - Liberty granted to
the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive
representation afresh before the Superintendent
of Police, Ambedkar Nagar (respondent no.2),
raising all pleas and grounds which are available
to him. (Para 31 & 32) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar, (1984)
3 SCC 14, AIR 1984 SC 1334;Malak Singh and
others versus State of P&H and others, (1981) 1
SCC 420;Gobind versus State of Madhya
Pradesh
and
others,
(1975)
2
SCC
148;Amanatullah
Khan
versus
The
Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5719 of 2023;
decided on 07.05.2024)

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950, The Uttar
Pradesh Police Regulations

List of Keywords
Opening of the History-sheet not mechanical
exercise; Subjective satisfaction; Regulation 228
casts duty on the Police Officer; Construe the
regulation strictly; History-sheet on the basis of
credible material; Reasonable belief;

Case Arising From
Respondent is unnecessarily harassing the
petitioner in one way or the other and not only
the petitioner has been harassed, his entire
family has been made to harassment causing
unbearable disturbance in the life of the
petitioner and his entire family and they are
living under fear and threat perceptions. The
petitioner has also filed a copy of the
representation dated 17.07.2025 as contained in
annexure no.9 to the writ petition, whereby the
petitioner made request to the opposite party
no.2/Superintendent
of
Police,
District
Ambedkar Nagar to close the History-sheet in
view of the fact that no criminal case against
the petitioner was pending till filing of the
instant writ petition. ( E-15)

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,748 of 50,788. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39748 for what follows._

70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submits that these judgements are against
the ratio of Constitution Bench judgement
of Supreme Court in the case of Shri
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) as well as
Sushila Aggarwal (supra) wherein it is
clearly observed that apprehension of arrest
in Section 438 Cr.P.C. (482 B.N.S.S.) must
involve an arbitrary and unwanted arrest
by the police. Therefore, when a person is
taken into custody by the court upon
appearing before it, in response to a
summons, this cannot be classified as an
arrest as mentioned in Section 482 B.N.S.S.

32. Therefore, on the basis of above
analysis, this Court holds the following :

(i) In a complaint case involving
accusation of a non-bailable offence,
anticipatory bail is not maintainable upon
the issuance of a summons, as there is no
apprehension of arrest by the police
without warrant;

(ii)
in
the
aforementioned
complaint case, when a bailable warrant is
issued, although the accused may fear the
arrest in pursuance of bailable warrant but
he will be released on bail on his readiness
to provide it. Therefore, in such cases also,
the anticipatory bail is not maintainable as
there is no apprehension of arrest and
detention.

(iii) In the event of a non-bailable
warrant or proclamation issued in the
above complaint case, anticipatory bail is
typically not maintainable. However, in
view of the judgement of the Apex Court in
Srikant Upadhyay (supra), the court may
grant
pre-arrest
bail
in
exceptional
circumstances in the interest of justice.

33. Coming back to the facts of the
present complaint case, record shows that
till date, warrant whether bailable or nonbailable, has not been issued, therefore,
merely issuance of summon by order dated
23.08.2022 against the applicant would not
come within the premises of apprehension
of being arrested by the police.

34. Therefore, the present anticipatory
bail
application
is
not
maintainable.
Accordingly, it is rejected.

35. However, the applicant is at liberty
to file a regular bail application before the
court below within a period of 15 days. In
case such an application is filed, the court
below
shall
consider
the
same
in
accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 70
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7463 of 2025

Rama Shankar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ramesh Chandra Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration

Whether the opening of the History-sheet by the
concerned police authority on the basis of one
case which was registered way back in the year
2008 and finally decided in favour the petitioner
acquitting him vide the aforesaid judgment and
order dated 06.04.2022 is justified under law
without assigning any cogent reason in the light
of Regulation(s) 228 & 240 of the U.P. Police
Regulations
8 All. Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
71
Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14,
21 & 226 - The Uttar Pradesh Police
Regulations-Regulations 228 & 240 - No
criminal
case
is
lying
against
the
petitioner
-
Petitioner
cannot
be
bracketed as confirmed or professional
criminal - Regulation 228 of the U.P.
Police Regulation casts duty to open the
History-sheet only on the basis of credible
material - No 'subjective satisfaction' or
'reasonable belief that the petitioner is a
confirmed or professional criminal or
habitual
offender
-
Opening
of
the
'History-sheet' should not be a mechanical
exercise - Liberty to the petitioner to
prefer a comprehensive representation
afresh before the Superintendent of Police
- Petition disposed of.

Held- Petitioner cannot be bracketed as
confirmed or professional criminal - Regulation
228 of the U.P. Police Regulation casts duty on
the Police Officer to construe the regulation
strictly and open the History-sheet only on the
basis of credible material - Record available
before this Court does not indicate any such
order to show the 'subjective satisfaction' or
'reasonable belief' of the Superintendent of
Police that the petitioner is a confirmed or
professional criminal or habitual offender - The
opening of the 'History-sheet' of any person
should not be a mechanical exercise, rather the
same should be careful, proper and thorough as
it is directly connected with the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India - Opening of 'History-sheet'
must be on the basis of subjective satisfaction
of the competent authority, and the subjective
satisfaction must be armed with legal provisions
vis-a-vis well reasoned and speaking decision,
failing which it would be hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India being arbitrary in nature
and not permissible in law - Liberty granted to
the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive
representation afresh before the Superintendent
of Police, Ambedkar Nagar (respondent no.2),
raising all pleas and grounds which are available
to him. (Para 31 & 32) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar, (1984)
3 SCC 14, AIR 1984 SC 1334;Malak Singh and
others versus State of P&H and others, (1981) 1
SCC 420;Gobind versus State of Madhya
Pradesh
and
others,
(1975)
2
SCC
148;Amanatullah
Khan
versus
The
Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5719 of 2023;
decided on 07.05.2024)

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950, The Uttar
Pradesh Police Regulations

List of Keywords
Opening of the History-sheet not mechanical
exercise; Subjective satisfaction; Regulation 228
casts duty on the Police Officer; Construe the
regulation strictly; History-sheet on the basis of
credible material; Reasonable belief;

Case Arising From
Respondent is unnecessarily harassing the
petitioner in one way or the other and not only
the petitioner has been harassed, his entire
family has been made to harassment causing
unbearable disturbance in the life of the
petitioner and his entire family and they are
living under fear and threat perceptions. The
petitioner has also filed a copy of the
representation dated 17.07.2025 as contained in
annexure no.9 to the writ petition, whereby the
petitioner made request to the opposite party
no.2/Superintendent
of
Police,
District
Ambedkar Nagar to close the History-sheet in
view of the fact that no criminal case against
the petitioner was pending till filing of the
instant writ petition. ( E-15)

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Chandra
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
G.D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. appearing for the
State/opposite parties and perused the record.

2. In view of the controversy involved
in this case, this Court with the consent of
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the parties proceeds to dispose of the same
without inviting counter affidavit.

3. By means of the present writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari
seeking quashment of the History-sheet of
the petitioner, if any, after summoning the
same from its original.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he
obtained information under the Right to
Information Act that almost from all the
police stations of the District- Ambedkar
Nagar, no criminal case is lying against the
petitioner but the Station House Officer,
Police
Station-
Malipur,
District-
Ambedkar Nagar (respondent no.3) has
published the name of the petitioner as
History-sheeter in the list and has pasted
the same at the police station.

5. It is pleaded on behalf of the
petitioner that the third respondent is
unnecessarily harassing the petitioner in
one way or the other and not only the
petitioner has been harassed, his entire
family has been made to harassment
causing unbearable disturbance in the life
of the petitioner and his entire family and
they are living under fear and threat
perceptions. The petitioner has also filed a
copy of the representation dated 17.07.2025
as contained in annexure no.9 to the writ
petition, whereby the petitioner made
request
to
the
opposite
party
no.2/Superintendent of Police, District-
Ambedkar Nagar to close the History-sheet
in view of the fact that no criminal case
against the petitioner was pending till filing
of the instant writ petition.

6. The epitome of facts which needs to
be mentioned for the purpose of deciding
the controversy involved in the present writ
petition and emanating from the material
available before this Court is that the
petitioner is resident of Village Rasoolpur
Bakarganj,
Police
Station-
Malipur,
District- Ambedkar Nagar and earns the
livelihood for himself and his family by
setting up Cart of 'Batasha, Tikki and
Chowmin'. It has been pleaded on behalf of
the petitioner that he was falsely implicated
in Case Crime No. 1125 of 2008, under
Section 379/411 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) of
The
U.P.
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station-
Kotwali
Ayodhya,
District-
Faizabad. The learned trial court held the
trial and finally acquitted the petitioner
vide the judgment and order dated
06.04.2022
passed
by
the
learned
Additional
District
&
Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court
No.5, Faizabad. For ready reference, the
aforesaid order is quoted herein-below:

"आदेश

विशेष दाण्डिक परीक्षण (गिरोहबंद)
संख्या 80/2009 संबंगित मुकदमा अपराि
संख्या 1125/2008 थाना कोo अयोध्या जनपद
फैजाबाद अयोध्या में अभियुक्त रमा शंकर
अग्रहरर एिं मदन िोपाल ततिारी को अंतिगत
िारा 379 411 िाoदoसo एिं िारा 3(1) उoप्रo
गिरोहबंद एिं समाज विरोिी क्रियाकलाप
तनिारण अगितनयम 1986 के अपराि के
आरोपो
में
दोषमुक्त
क्रकया
जाता
है।
अभियुक्तिण
जमानत
पर
है
उनके
जमानतनामें ि बंि पत्र तनरस्त क्रकये जाते है
तथा उनके जमानतदारो को उनके दातयत्िो से
उन्मोगित क्रकया जाता है। अभियुक्त द्िारा
8 All. Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
73
िारा 437ए दoप्रoसo का अनुपालन अपील के
प्रयोजन से पिास हजार रूपये का व्यण्क्तित
बंि पत्र ि इसी राभश की दो जमानते दाखिल
क्रकया जा िुका है जो अगग्रम छः माह तक
अिगि के भलये प्रिािी होिी। "

7. The allegation as levelled by the
petitioner in paragraph no.8 of the writ
petition is that all of sudden the local police
of the Police Station- Malipur, DistrictAmbedkar Nagar started harassing the
petitioner without assigning any reason and
informed him that the proceedings as
history-sheeter is going on against him.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner states that on coming to know
that the name of the petitioner has been
mentioned in the list of history-sheeters and
his photograph has also been pasted at the
Police
Station-
Malipur,
District-
Ambedkar Nagar, he made an application
under the Right to Information Act seeking
information
regarding
the
status
of
registered cases, if any, in the respective
police stations, the details whereof has been
mentioned by the petitioner in paragraph
no.10 of the writ petition, which is quoted
hereinunder:

Information
Circle
Police Stations
13.3.2025
Alapur
Alapur,
Jahangirganj,
Rajesultanpur
17.3.2025
Jalalpur
Jalalpur, Jaitpur, Malipur and
Katka
23.3.2025
Bhiti
Bhiti, Ahirauli, Mahraua and
Mahila Thana
 27.3.2025
-
Kotwali, Akbarpur, Baskhari,
Sammanpur, Bewana
March 2025
-
Kotwali Tanda, Ibrahimpur,
Hanswar, Aliganj

8. It is submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that on moving the application
dated 09.04.2025 under the Right to
Information Act, he was informed on
24.04.2025 by the Public Information
Officer/Circle Officer, Jalalpur, District-
Ambedkar Nagar that no proceeding of
history-sheet has been done against the
petitioner by the Police Stations namely
Jalalpur, Jaitpur and Katka, falling under
Circle Jalalpur. However, proceeding has
been done by the Police Station- Malipur,
District- Ambedkar Nagar. Further, the
Circle Officer, Tanda, District- Ambedkar
Nagar vide letter dated 03.05.2025 also
furnished
information
to
the
Public
Relation Officer/Nodal Officer, Additional
Police
Commissioner,
West,
District-
Ambedkar Nagar that no proceeding of
History-sheet has been done by the Police
Stations- Kotwali, Tanda, Ibrahimpur,
Hanswar and Aliganj. Similar pieces of
information were also provided by the
Circle Officer, Bhiti, District- Ambedkar
Nagar that no such proceeding against the
petitioner has been done by the Police
Stations- Bhiti, Ahirauli, Maharua and
Mahila Thana.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn the attention of this Court to a
letter written by the Assistant Information
Officer/Circle Officer, Ambedkar Nagar
addressed
to
the
Public
Information
Officer/Nodal Officer that no criminal case
against the petitioner is found registered in
any of the police stations falling under the
concerned circle. It is also stated by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that on
the
basis
of
the
aforesaid
definite
information received from the concerned
police stations and in the teeth of the fact
that the only criminal case which was
registered against the petitioner way back
in the year 2008 bearing Case Crime No.
1125 of 2008, under Section 379/411 I.P.C.
and Section 3(1) of The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District-
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Faizabad, has already been concluded
wherein the petitioner has been acquitted
vide the judgment and order dated
06.04.2022 passed by the Additional
District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(Gangster Act), Court No.5, Faizabad,
against which no appeal was ever filed to
the best of his information; the proceedings
under Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police
Regulations is totally arbitrary, illegal and
unwarranted, as such the same is liable to
be closed and the petitioner and his family
may not be put to any harassment under the
garb of such unwarranted proceeding.

10. It has been very emphatically
argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the action on the part of the
opposite parties bracketing the petitioner as
History-sheeter
despite
having
been
acquitted in the only case as detailed
herein-above and also when no case is
pending in any of the police stations;
suffers from the vice of non-application of
mind and reflects the biased attitude of the
opposite parties for the reason best known
to them or may be at the instance of some
persons inimical to the petitioner or due to
some personal grudge. He further submits
that the action of the concerned police
authorities is in utter disregard to the
mandatory provisions of Regulation(s) 228
and 240 of the U.P. Police Regulations,
which require prior verification of facts and
recording
of
its
satisfaction
before
declaring anyone as History-sheeter.

11. It has been vehemently argued by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner was falsely implicated in only
one criminal case as detailed in the
preceding paragraphs in which he has been
acquitted and no appeal against the
acquittal has ever been preferred by the
opposite parties. Even then, the petitioner
has been put to unbearable harassment
without just or legal cause, causing
violation of petitioners Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. The contention of
the learned counsel is that the basic
requirement for opening History-sheet is
that the person(s) must be of such kind that
either they are or like to become habitual
criminal or abettors of such criminals. He
very categorically submitted that there is no
material on record to show that the
petitioner has ever posed any danger to law
and order or public peace or in any manner
falls within Class A and Class B as
classified in Regulation 228 of the U.P.
Police Regulations.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has
also
stated
that
the
petitioners
representation dated 17.07.2025 made
before
the
second
respondent/Superintendent
of
Police,
District- Amebedkar Nagar has not been
given any consideration till date, causing
irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.

13. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State-opposite parties on the basis of
the
instructions
dated
13/14.08.2025
provided by the Sub Inspector, Police
Station-
Malipur,
District-
Ambedkar
Nagar, submitted that the petitioner does
not have a good image in the society and
carries reputation of 'daring terrorist
(दुस्साहभसक दहशतिदग)' and a person
dangerous to the society and as such taking
into consideration the previous criminal
history of the petitioner, History-sheet No.
67A dated 16.03.2010 has been opened in
accordance with Regulation 240 of the U.P.
Police Regulations. The relevant portion of
the said instructions as placed by the
8 All. Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
75
learned A.G.A. before this Court is
extracted herein-below:

"1. यह क्रक प्रस्तर यागिकाकताग/
अभियुक्त रमा शंकर पुत्र िनपत सहाय
तनिासी रसूलपुर बाकरिंज, थाना मालीपुर,
जनपद अम्बेिकरनिर एक हहस्रीशीटर ि
शाततर क्रकस्म का अपरािी है। ण्जनकी सामान्य
ख्यातत एिं दुस्साहभसक दहशतिदग एिं जन
समुदाय के भलये ितरनाक व्यण्क्त होने की हैं
तथा िुडिा एिं बदमाश क्रकस्म का व्यण्क्त है।
अभियुक्त/यािी
द्िारा
काररत
कृत्य
आईoपीoसीo के अन्तिगत िखणगत अपरािों का
अभ्यस्त अपरािी है।

2. यह क्रक यागिकाकताग/अभियुक्त
रमा शंकर पुत्र िनपत सहाय तनिासी रसूलपुर
बाकरिंज,
थाना
मालीपुर,
जनपद
अम्बेिकरनिर
के
विरूद्ि
तनम्नभलखित
अभियोि पंजीकृत है:

1.
मुoअoसंo-1125/2008
िारा
379/411 आईoपीoसीo ि िारा 3 (1) उoप्रo
गिरोह बंद एिं समाज विरोिी क्रकया कलाप
तनिारण अगितनयत 1986 थाना कोतिाली
अयोध्या, जनपद अयोध्या में पंजीकृत होकर
वििेिनोपरान्त जररये आरोप पत्र वििेिना
समाप्त की िई तथा माननीय न्यायालय के
आदेशानुसार दोषमुक्त क्रकया जा िुका है।

3. यह क्रक यागिकाकताग/अभियुक्त
रमाशंकर उपरोक्त एक अपरािी क्रकस्म का
व्यण्क्त है। जो क्रक सह अभियुक्तो के साथ
भमलकर िोरी सम्बण्न्ित अपराि काररत करने
का आहद हैं। अभियुक्त/यािी ण्जनका समाज में
स्िच्छन्द रहना हहतकर नहीं है ि ण्जससे शांतत
िंि होने की प्रबल संिािना पाये जाने तथा
अभियुक्त द्िारा आम जनता में िय एिं
आतंक व्याप्त होने तथा अभियुक्त के विरूद्ि
कोई ििाही देने को तैयार नहीं होता है।
यािी/अपीलाथी ऐसे अपरािों को करने हेतु
दूसरो को िी प्रेररत करता है ण्जसकी सामान्य
ख्यातत एि दुस्साहभसक दहशतिदग एिं जन
समुदाय के भलये ितरनाक व्यण्क्त होने की है।
िुडिा एिं बदमाश क्रकस्म का व्यण्क्त है,
ण्जसकी सामान्य ख्यातत अच्छी नहीं है।

4. यह क्रक यािी/अभियुक्त की
सामान्य ख्यातत एिं दुस्साहभसक दहशतिदग
एिं जन समुदाय के भलये ितरनाक व्यण्क्त
होने की है। ण्जसके विरूद्ि दजग आपरागिक
इततहास के आिार पर यािी/अभियुक्त के पूिग
आपरागिक
इततहास
तथा
ितगमान
में
आपरागिक िततविगियों को दृण्टटित रिते हुए
अभियुक्त के विरूद्ि हहस्रीशीटर संख्या-67ए
हदनांक 16.03.2010 को िोली िई है। जोक्रक
उoप्रo पुभलस रेिुलेशन के पैरा 240 के अनुसार
दोषभसद्ि या दोषमुक्त होने दोनो आिार पर
िोली जा सकती हैं।

5. यह क्रक यागिकाकताग/अभियुक्त
रमा शंकर पुत्र िनपत सहाय तनिासी रसूलपुर
बाकरिंज,
थाना
मालीपुर,
जनपद
अम्बेिकरनिर जोक्रक एक हहस्रीशीटर है
ण्जसकी समय-समय पर थाना स्थानीय की
पुभलस
द्िारा
समय-समय
पर
तनिरानी/सत्यापन हेतु यािी/अभियुक्त से
पूछताछ की जाती है तथा ितगमान में िी
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
यािी/अभियुक्त की तनिरानी की जा रही हैं।
थाना मालीपुर, जनपद अम्बेिकरनिर द्िारा
यािी/अभियुक्त ि उसके पररजनो को स्थानीय
थाने की पुभलस द्िारा क्रकसी िी प्रकार से हैरान
ि
परेशान
नहीं
क्रकया
िया
है
तथा
यािी/अभियुक्त के द्िारा पुनः अपराि काररत
क्रकये जाने की संिािना से इनकार नहीं क्रकया
जा सकता है। हहस्रीशीटर की तनिरानी बन्द
क्रकये जाने हेतु उoप्रo पुभलस रेिुलेशन के
अनुसार पुभलस के उच्िागिकाररयों के आदेशो /
तनदेशों के िम में कायगिाही क्रकया जाना
समीिीन हैं।"

14.
Confronting
the
aforesaid
allegation as levelled by the learned A.G.A.
on the basis of the instructions received
from the Sub Inspector, P.S.- Malipur,
District- Ambedkar Nagar, learned counsel
for
the
petitioner
very
emphatically
asserted that the same are totally baseless,
purported and malicious. He submitted that
in the absence of any proof or material on
record, the aforesaid allegations made
against the petitioner are highly deplorable
and cannot be given any legal weightage to
proceed against the petitioner in any
manner, whatsoever. Further, the said
instructions from the concerned police
stations reflect the vindictive attitude of the
local police against the petitioner which
cannot be allowed under the law to give
colour of a legal proceeding.

15. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
before this Court.

16. Before arriving at a definite
conclusion that in the instant case whether
the opening of the History-sheet by the
concerned police authority on the basis of
one case which was registered way back in
the year 2008 and finally decided in favour
the petitioner acquitting him vide the
aforesaid
judgment
and
order
dated
06.04.2022 is justified under law without
assigning any cogent reason in the light of
Regulation(s) 228 & 240 of the U.P. Police
Regulations; it would be appropriate to go
through the provisions of Regulation 228 &
240 of the U.P. Police Regulations. For
convenience, the relevant extract of the
same is quoted herein-below:

228. Part V consists of history
sheets. These are the personal records of
criminals under surveillance. Historysheets should be opened only for persons
who are or likely to become habitual
criminal or abettors of such criminals.
There will be two classes of history-sheets:

(1) Class A history-sheets for
dacoits, burglars, cattle-thieves, railwaygoods wagon thieves, and abettors thereof

(2) Class B history-sheets for
confirmed and professional criminals who
commit
crimes
other
than
dacoity,
burglary, cattle-theft, and theft from
railway goods wagons, e.g. professional
cheats and other experts for whom criminal
personal files are maintained by the
Criminal
Investigation
Department,
poisoners,
cattle
poisoners,
railway
passenger thieves, bicycle thieves, expert
pick-pockets, forgers, coiners, cocaine and
opium smugglers, hired ruffians and
goondas, telegraph wire-cutters, habitual
illicit distillers and abettors thereof.

History-sheets of both classes will
be maintained in similar form, but those for
class B will be distinguished by a red bar
marked at the top of the first page. No
history-sheet of class B may be converted
into a history-sheet of class A, though
should be the subject of a history-sheet of
8 All. Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
77
class B be found to be also addicted to
dacoity, burglary, cattle-theft or theft from
railway goods wagons. A class, as well as
B class, surveillance may under paragraph
238 be applied to him. In the event of a
class
A
history-sheet
man
becoming
addicted
to
miscellaneous
crime
his
history-sheet may be converted into a class
B history-sheet with the sanction of the
Superintendent.

...............................

240.
History-sheets
of
both
classes may be opened (1) on suspicion or
(2) on conviction or acquittal. No historysheet may be opened without the orders of
the Superintendent of Police.

(1) On suspicion- Whenever as a
result of investigation into a case of
dacoity, burglary, cattle theft from railway
goods
wagons
or
into
a
case
of
miscellaneous crime of a professional type,
the officer-in-charge of a police station
applies for the name of any person to be
entered in the crime register as reasonably
suspected, he must at the same time report
whether the suspect is under surveillance,
and if not, whether a history-sheet should in
his opinion be opened for him. Should the
gazetted officer-in-charge of a subdivision on
receiving such a report and after such further
inquiry as he may think necessary consider
that a history-sheet is required he will
forward the report to the Superintendent who
if he accepts the proposal will define the class
of history-sheet to be opened and pass orders
as to whether the suspect should be 'starred'.
Similarly whenever an officer-in-charge of a
police station finds reason to believe,
otherwise than in the course of an
investigation, that any resident of his circle is
addicted to crime, or whenever a gazetted
officer or Circle inspector for any reason
believes that a history-sheet for any person is
necessary a report must be submitted to the
Superintendent, who will pass orders on it as
laid down above.

(2) On conviction or acquittal
Whenever any person is sent for trial on a
charge of dacoity, burglary, cattle theft or
theft from a railway goods wagons or of
miscellaneous crime of a professional type,
the officer-in-charge of the police station
must state in his diary whether the accused
has a history-sheet and if not, whether he
recommends that a history sheet should be
opened for him. It will be the duty of the
public prosecutor, if the accused is acquitted
to inform the Superintendent, in his report on
the acquittal or otherwise, whether in his
opinion a history-sheet is required. On this
the Superintendent will pass any orders to the
station officer that may be necessary. If the
accused is convicted, the public prosecutor
must, in the remarks column of the daily
report of convictions and acquittals (Form
No. 107) enter in red ink the words. 'On H.S.'
if a history-sheet is already open, or the
letters 'H.S.' if he recommends that one
should be prepared. In either case he must
prepare and attach to the daily report of
convictions and acquittals a P.R. slip (Form
No. 313). If a history-sheet is already open or
if the Superintendent agrees that a historysheet should be opened he will sign this P.R.
slip and initial the letters 'H.S. or 'On H.S.' on
the daily report of convictions and acquittals.
The public prosecutor will then communicate
the Superintendent's orders for the opening of
a history sheet to the police station concerned
and will forward the P.R. slip to the
Superintendent of Jail. If no history-sheet is
opened and if the Superintendent does not
agree that one should be prepared, he will
not sign the P.R. slip. which will be
cancelled.

If the accused is a resident of
another district or State or has been sent
for trial by the railway police, the same
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procedure will be followed except that the
Superintendent of Police will not order a
history-sheet to be opened. If the accused is
convicted and the Superintendent considers
a history-sheet to be desirable the P.R. slip
will
be
signed
and
sent
to
the
Superintendent
of
the
Jail
and
the
Superintendent of Jail shall furnish the
Superintendent of Police with a receipt for
the P.R. slip. In column 10 Form No. 148
(conviction roll) the public prosecutor will
note in red ink that this has been done and
in column 15 of the same form a note will
be made recommending that a history-sheet
should be opened: Any conviction roll on
which a recommendation for the opening of
history-sheet has been made must on
receipt in the district of the convict's
residence
be
put
up
before
the
Superintendent of Police of that district
who will decide whether a history-sheet
should be opened or not, and will address
the Superintendent of the Jail regarding the
cancellation of the P.R. slip if he does not
agree that a history-sheet is necessary.
Notwithstanding anything in the above, the
Superintendent of Police of any district in
Uttar Pradesh shall subject to the final
decision of the Deputy Inspector-General
of the Range, to whom any question of
disagreement must be referred, be bound to
open a history-sheet at the request of the
Superintendent of Government Railway
Police for any person resident who is
suspected or convicted of crime on the
railway.
The
Superintendent,
Railway
Police
should
specify
the
kind
of
surveillance required in each case.

In the case of persons, sent for
trial by the Railway police, in which the
Superintendent considers a history-sheet
desirable, the public prosecutor will send
Form No. 143 (conviction roll) endorsed,
as directed above, to the Superintendent of
the
man's
district,
through
the
Superintendent, Railway Police.

The
Superintendent,
Railway
Police, in forwarding Form No. 148 to the
Superintendent of the district concerned
will state whether he considers a historysheet necessary. If not, he will request the
Superintendent of the Jail to cancel the
P.R. slip.

17. Regulation 228 of the U.P. Police
Regulations provides that the Historysheets should be opened only for the
persons who are or likely to become
habitual criminal or abettors of such
criminals.

(emphasis supplied)

18. It is also provided that there will
be two classes of History-sheets namely
Class A and Class B. The process to start a
History-sheet of a criminal arises from the
stage that a particular person is considered
or
thought
to
be
a
confirmed
or
professional criminal for which there
should be some basis or material and in
case of complete absence of such material,
the action in starting a History-sheet will be
illegal and without jurisdiction. From
perusal of Regulation 228 of the U.P.
Police Regulations, it is explicit that the
History-sheets can be opened only for the
persons who are or likely to become
habitual criminal or abettors of such
criminals. The word Only used in the said
Regulation reflects the scope of Regulation
228 of the Regulations only, meaning
thereby that the History-sheets can be
opened either for the persons who are or
likely to become habitual criminal or
abettors of such criminals. The expression
Habitual Criminal has been categorically
interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the Case of Vijay Narain Singh versus
8 All. Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
79
State of Bihar, reported in (1984) 3 SCC
14, AIR 1984 SC 1334. Speaking for the
majority, His Lordship, Hon'ble E.S.
Venkataramaiah, J. held:

The expression 'habitually' means
'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It implies a
thread of continuity stringing together
similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent
and similar, but not isolated, individual
and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify
an inference of habit. ..........A single act or
omission
......cannot
therefore
be
characterised as a habitual act or omission
........Because the idea of 'habit' involves an
element of persistence and tendency to
repeat the acts or omissions of the same
class or kind, if the acts or omissions in
question are not of the same kind or even if
they are of the same kind when they are
committed with a long interval of time
between them they cannot be treated as
habitual ones.

19. Canvassing the facts of the present
case, in the light of the explanation given
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the
expression Habitual?, we find that there
was only a solitary case having Case Crime
No. 1125 of 2008 that resulted into
acquittal in the year 2022 and there is no
other criminal case or complaint found
registered against the petitioner before the
police station or the court concerned to
indicate any criminal history. As such, this
Court fails to comprehend any thread of
continuity stringing together similar repetitive
acts and as such there appears to be no basis
to presume that the person is a confirmed or
professional criminal. Further, the allegations
levelled
in
the
instructions
dated
13/14.08.2025 as quoted herein-above also
does not disclose the basis of the allegations
or any reference of any case to establish such
serious allegations as are made against the
petitioner. As per the said instructions, the
History-sheet No. 67A dated 16.03.2010 was
opened against the petitioner on the basis of
his past criminal history and the present
criminal activities, in accordance with the
provisions of Regulation 240 of the U.P.
Police Regulations. Regulation 240 of the
U.P. Police Regulations provides that the
History-sheets may be opened in the
following two situations, subject to the order
of the Superintendent of Police:

1. On Suspicion

2. On Conviction or Acquittal

20. It goes without saying that no
History-sheet can be opened without the
orders of Superintendent of Police. In the first
situation that is On Suspicion?, the Officerin-charge of the police station applies for the
name of any person to be entered in the crime
register as reasonably suspected and at the
same time shall submit its report as to
whether the suspect is under surveillance, and
if not, whether a history-sheet should in his
opinion be opened for him. The gazetted
officer-in-charge of the sub-division on
receiving such a report and after such further
inquiry as he may think necessary consider
that the History-sheet is required he will
forward the report to the Superintendent for
appropriate orders. It is further provided that
whenever an officer-in-charge of the police
station finds reason to believe, otherwise than
in the course of an investigation, that any
resident of his circle is addicted to crime, or
whenever a gazetted officer or Circle
Inspector for any reason believes that a
history-sheet for any person is necessary a
report
must
be
submitted
to
the
Superintendent, who will pass appropriate
orders.

21. In the second situation that is On
Conviction or Acquittal, the specific order
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the concerned Superintendent of Police
on the basis of the recommendation/ report
as provided in Regulation 240(2) of the
U.P. Police Regulations, is mandatorily
required.

22. In the instant case, as per the
record, only one case was registered in the
year 2008 against the petitioner which
ultimately resulted into acquittal and except
the same there is nothing on record to show
that the petitioner is or has been a habitual
offender. Prima-facie, the petitioner cannot
be classified as a History-sheeter, even
otherwise Regulation 240 of the U.P.
Police Regulations though contemplates
opening of the History-sheet on the basis of
suspicion and on the basis of conviction or
acquittal, but at the same time requirement
of cogent and reliable material to form
'suspicion' about a person cannot be ruled
out. Further, the recital of the written
instructions, as quoted herein-above, does
not indicate any reference to any order
passed by the Superintendent of Police as
provided under Regulation 240 of the U.P.
Police
Regulations.
Additionally,
the
documents as contained in Annexure No.5,
6, 7 and 8 also reflect that no criminal
antecedents of the petitioner are available
in the concerned police stations.

23. At this stage, it would not be out
of place to notice that the Regulation 232
and 233 of the U.P. Police Regulations
provide that the History-sheet of Class B
will be continuously open records and the
subjects of these sheets will except for every
special reasons remain under surveillance
until
death.
The
discontinuance
of
surveillance of the subject of a History-sheet
does not entail closing that History-sheet. A
History-sheet which is only a record of
information need never be considered closed.
In the case of persons whose surveillance is
discontinued a note should be made to this
effect in the history-sheet, and thereafter no
periodical or other entries need be made
unless something comes to notice which it is
desirable to enter in the sheet.

24. Further, Regulation 234 of the U.P.
Police Regulations categorically provides that
no History-sheet of Class A may be
discontinued without the sanction of the
Superintendent of Police. If it is denied to
discontinue the surveillance of the subject of
a history sheet of Class B, the sanction of the
Deputy Inspector General or Superintendent,
Railway Police, must be obtained.

25. Learned counsel for the petitoner
also argued that putting the name of the
petitioner in the History-sheet amounts to
violation of his fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and by naming the petitioner as Historysheeter the police authorities have seriously
encroached upon the privacy of the petitioner
and his fundamental right of personal liberty.

26. Taking into consideration the spirit
of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
this Court finds that the fundamental right as
guaranteed under Article 21 is so designed
that it protects the rights of a person to the
extent that he shall not be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except by the procedure
established by 'law'. The provisions of U.P.
Police Regulations carry the force of law and
as such the enforcement of the same within
the legal bounds cannot be taken as the
violation of the rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

27. This aspect of the matter has been
dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Malak Singh and others versus
State of P&H and others, reported in
(1981) 1 SCC 420, wherein Hon'ble Mr.
8 All. Rama Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
81
Justice Chinnapa Reddy (as he then was)
speaking on behalf of Bench observed that:

"8. The entry in the surveillance
register is to be made on the basis of the
material provided by the history sheet
whose contents, by their very nature have
to be confidential. It would be contrary to
the public interest to reveal the information
in the history sheet, particularly the source
of Information. Revelation of the source of
information may put the Informant in
jeopardy. The observance of the principle
of natural Justice, apart from not serving
the ends of justice may thus lead to
undesirable results. We accordingly hold
that the rule audi alteram partem is not
attracted.

9. But all this does not mean that
the police have a licence to enter the names
of whoever they like (dislike) in the
surveillance
register;
nor
can
the
surveillance be such as to squeeze the
fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all
citizens or to obstruct the free exercise and
enjoyment of those freedoms; nor can the
surveillance so intrude as to offend the
dignity of the individual. Surveillance of
persons who do not fall within the
categories mentioned in Rule 23.4 or for
reasons unconnected with the prevention of
crime, or excessive surveillance falling
beyond the limits prescribed by the rules,
will entitle a citizen to the court's
protection which the court will not hesitate
to give. The very Rules which prescribe the
conditions for making entries in the
surveillance register and the mode of
surveillance appear to recognise the caution
and care with which the police officers are
required to proceed. The note following Rule
23.4 is instructive. It enjoins a duty upon the
police officer to construe the rule strictly and
confine the entries in the surveillance register
to the class of persons mentioned in the rule.
Similarly Rule 23.7 demands that there
should be no illegal interference in the guise
of surveillance. Surveillance, therefore, has
to be unobtrusive and within bounds."

10. Ordinarily the names of
persons with previous criminal record alone
are entered in the surveillance register. They
must be proclaimed offenders, previous
convicts, or person who have already been
placed on security for good behaviour. In
addition, names of persons who are
reasonably believed to be habitual offenders
or receivers of stolen property whether they
have been convicted or not may be entered. It
is only in the case of this category of persons
that there may be occasion for abuse of the
power of the police officer to make entries in
the surveillance register. But, here, the entry
can only be made by the order of the
Superintendent of Police who is prohibited
from delegating his authority under Rule
23.5.