AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the respondent authorities.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) and 28.06.2023 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 4 and further be pleased to direct to the respondent authority to delete the name of the petitioner from Gunda List/Surveillance List, is in the interest of justice.
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have filed this petition against the orders dated 30.10.2018 and 28.06.2023 passed by the respondent No. 4, whereby the name of the petitioner has been included in the list of history-sheeters.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier against the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition, being WPCR No. 269 of 2023 before this Court which was disposed off vide order dated 19.06.2023 with a direction to the respondent No. 4 to decide the representation made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Thereafter, on 28.06.2023, respondent No. 4 decided the representation made by the petitioner and maintained the name of the petitioner in Gunda List/Surveillance list as per the earlier order dated 30.10.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the petitioner, five cases were registered arising out of Criminal Case No. 315/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Case No. 525/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC, Criminal Case No. 325/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC, Criminal Case No. 284/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC and Criminal Case No. 112/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 498-A and 34 of the IPC. He further submits that the competent Court has acquitted the petitioner from all the criminal case registered against him wherein his name was included in the Gunda List/ History-sheeter list. He also submits that the respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order in violation of Regulation 855 of Police Regulation.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate would support the impugned orders and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
The Regulation 855 of Police Regulation reads as under:
“855. Surveillance-persons fit for: Surveillance proper, as distinct from general supervision, should be restricted to those persons, whether previously convicted or not, against whom reasonable material exists to induce the opinion that they show a determination to lead a life of crime, being confined to such criminal activities as involve public peace and security and are dangerous security risk. Mere convictions in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperils safety of society shall not warrant surveillance under this regulation. When the entries in a history sheet or any other information at his disposal, lead the Superintendent of Police to believe that a particular individual is leading a life of crime, as aforesaid, he may order that his name be entered in the Surveillance Register. The Circle Inspector will thereupon open a history sheet, if one is not already in existence and the man will be placed under regular surveillance.”
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and further that the respondent No. 4 ignored the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent Court from all the criminal cases and while rejecting the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 had not given any specific reason nor has recorded anything satisfactorily as to why the petitioner name maintained in the Gunda List/Survelliance list in the light of the Regulation 855 of the Police Regulation.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the orders dated 30.10.2018 and 28.06.2023 passed by the respondent No. 4 is bad in law and accordingly, the same are set aside with a direction to the concerned Superintendent of Police to pass a speaking order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
With the aforesaid observation / direction the present writ petition is disposed off.