1 2025:CGHC:19897-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 168 of 2025 Arun Yadav Alies Goldi S/o Bhagat Ram Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Beladulla, Kharraghat, Thana- Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - S.H.O. Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Dy.Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01/05/2025 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly issue a writ in ature certitiori and quash the note sheet No. PU.A.RAI/DCB/182/2007 dated 02.03.2007 against the petitioner by the respondent No.4 ie. the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh (CG) 10.2. That the Hon’ble Court may issue writ in mandamus and direct the respondent No.4 to review their note sheet No. PU.A.RAI/DCB/182/2007 dated 02.03.2007. 10.3. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. 10.4. Cost of the petition may be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case are that the Town Inspector had registered the offence against the petitioner which was ultimately decided in his favour in Cr. Case Nos.776/2002 and 1331/2006 and Revision No. 106/2002 vide orders dated 06.04.2005,11.12.2009 and 01.07.2003 and on recommendation of the respondent No.5, the respondent No.4 issued the order in respect of keeping the petitioner under surveillance offender and thereafter he was not involved in any criminal activities. The petitioner moved application on 29.07.2015 with the help of his father before the respondent NO.4 for orders regarding putting him in surveillance list under Regulation 651 and 652 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulation Act. Thereafter the respondent No.5 had not reviewed the list as per regulation 652 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulation Act whereby the history of the accused/ petitioner can be reviewed by the Station House 3 Officer within a period of one year and if not necessary, the same can be closed but in the instant case since the year 2007 to the yer 2015 no case has been registered against the petitioner and therefore as per the regulation 654, the respondent authority can close or remove the name of the petitioner from history sheet list. 3. Contention of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authority have violated the personal liberty of the petitioner under Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. may be directed to remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet. He submits that the respondents have not acted in a manner prescribed under regulation in case of Swarup Chand Vs. DS of Police 1973 CRLJ Pg. No. 1038 whereby the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had considered the case stating that before opening of the history, the authority must use its power in bonafide manner and can challenge the circumstance on the ground of mala fide. He submits that the attitude of the police official to history-sheeting is seen varying from plain ignorance to abject indifference in following the principles laid down. It has been further held that history Sheeting is a permitted means of achieving crime-prevention and in the State under the provisions of the Police Standing Orders (henceforth the PSO). He submits that from the year 2007, no offence has been registered against the petitioner and after 2009 no offence has been registered against him and therefore his name may be removed from the history sheet list 4. Learned State counsel submits that after keeping the petitioner owing to the involvement in criminal activities, his name was kept under Surveillance Offender list of Gunda Badmash on 21.03.2003 and the same continued till 07.04.2025. During pendency of the present petition the 4 Superintendent of Police, District Raigarh/respondent No.4 had duly considered the representation of the petitioner and presently, as he was not involved in any other criminal activities/inactive in crime and therefore vide order dated 08.04.2025 the name of the petitioner has been withdrawn from the Surveillance Offender Gunda List. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned State counsel that the name of the petitioner has been removed from the Surveillance Offender Gunda List, nothing remains in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.05.03 11:41:44 +0530