Kashmir Impulse Desk

Srinagar, May 20 

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a person cannot be declared a “habitual offender” merely on suspicion or unsubstantiated belief, saying such a determination must be based on objective and verifiable material.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Ghulam Muhammad Sheikh, who had challenged the opening of a history sheet and inclusion of his name in Surveillance Register No 10 maintained at Beerwah police station in central Kashmir’s Budgam district.

The court said the formation of “subjective satisfaction” regarding a person being habitually involved in crime “must rest upon reasonable belief founded on objective and verifiable material”.

Sheikh argued that he had been falsely implicated in several cases due to political vendetta and had never been convicted in any criminal matter. He also contended that despite securing bail in the cases registered against him, authorities entered his name in the surveillance register and opened a history sheet without giving him an opportunity to be heard, as required under the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960.

The authorities, in their response, said Sheikh was involved in multiple criminal cases, including offences under Sections 420, 376, 354 and 467 of the RPC/IPC, and maintained that the surveillance proceedings were initiated in accordance with law.

After examining the matter and provisions under Rules 698, 699 and 702 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules governing surveillance registers and history sheets, the court observed that branding a person as a history-sheeter carried serious consequences and could not be done mechanically.

The court noted that Sheikh’s name had been entered into Surveillance Register No 10 without issuance of notice or grant of a reasonable opportunity of hearing as envisaged under the rules.

It further held that surveillance measures must strictly conform to legal safeguards and should not violate the right to dignity and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Mere belief is insufficient unless supported by reasonable grounds,” the court said.

The bench observed that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate the formation of a reasonable belief that Sheikh was a habitual offender warranting continued surveillance.

Allowing the petition, the court quashed the history sheet opened against Sheikh and directed authorities to remove his name from Surveillance Register No 10 forthwith.