Directing the closure of a history-sheet opened against a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act eight years ago, the Allahabad High Court observed that the police cannot exercise “unbridled and uncanalised power” to curtail fundamental freedoms guaranteed to citizens.The court further held that police do not have an unfettered licence to arbitrarily enter names of persons, merely based on personal likes or dislikes, in the surveillance register.The HC made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Wajir. The petitioner had approached the court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated June 23, in which the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, rejected his representation for the closure of history-sheet No. 18-A (Category).The application was rejected based on reports submitted by the Circle Officer and the Station House Officer, Bhawaniganj, Siddharth Nagar, which mentioned provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, particularly paragraphs 228 and 240 (which deal with opening a history sheet).“We have to examine the case based on facts and circumstances. We are of the considered view that Regulation 228 and 240 do not give an unbridled, uncanalised power to the police to use it in such a way which has the necessary consequence of squeezing out the fundamental freedom of the citizen,” the court observed.It added, “… Evidently, police do not possess a licence to enter the names of whoever they like or dislike in the surveillance register. Ordinarily, the names of persons with a previous criminal record alone are entered in the surveillance register. They must be proclaimed offenders, previous convicts… 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, can be categorised and entered in the surveillance register under the Police Regulation.”Contending the case, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that Mohammad Wajir is not a habitual offender and that only one case — filed under Sections 3/5/7 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act — was registered against him in 2016.Story continues below this adThe counsel said the investigation has concluded, a chargesheet has been filed, and the petitioner is out on bail. Except for this case, the counsel said, no FIR, NCR (non-cognizable report), or complaint has been registered against Wajir.It was argued that the police authority has illegally and arbitrarily opened the history-sheet against the petitioner without any cogent or reliable material, in violation of paragraphs 228, 229, 231, 233 and other relevant provisions of the UP Police Regulations.The counsel further contended that the very purpose of opening a history-sheet is to enable the police to maintain surveillance over persons habitually involved in criminal activities. But in the present case, the counsel argued, the history-sheet was opened merely based on a solitary case registered eight years ago.The court stated in its order, “(After) a close perusal of the order of the Superintendent of Police… it transpires that while rejecting the representation of the petitioner and justifying opening of the history-sheet, he has referred to Police Regulation 228 (1) and… 240, which are enabling provisions for opening a history-sheet of a person. We are conscious of the Police Regulations, but the said provisions provide that a history-sheet can be opened only against such persons who are dacoits, burglars, cattle thieves, railway goods wagon thieves, and abettors of such offence… Regulation 240 enables the police to open a history sheet based on suspicion or on conviction or acquittal.”Story continues below this ad“We have also noticed that the representation pursuant to a direction of this court has very casually been rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, stating therein that the provisions in Police Regulation 228 and 240 authorise police to open a history-sheet. However, we have noticed that there is nothing to substantiate that the petitioner is involved in the nature of offence envisaged by Regulation 228 (A) of Police Regulation… Admittedly, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and, therefore…, the order dated 23.06.2025 cannot be left to stand,” the court added.“… There exists no evidence to support the act of opening the history-sheet… Therefore, it deserves to be quashed… and the writ petition is allowed… The respondents are directed to close the present history sheet… and not keep surveillance on the petitioner…,” the court further stated in its order.