1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.784 OF 2011 Samir Mangroo Shaikh Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.Murtaza Najmi for petitioner. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP for State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATE : 29th September 2011 PC : 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP.. In terms of order dated 9th August 2011, this petition has been confined to only prayer clause (a). The Court has allowed the petitioner to pursue the petition only with reference to prayer clause (a). Prayer clause (a) of the petition reads thus :- "(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct by a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order the Respondent no.3 to delete the name of the Petitioner from the Surveillance Register and the History Sheet maintained by them under the provisions of the Bombay Police Manual." 2. The argument canvassed before us is that the petitioner's name has been entered in the Surveillance Register as back as in the year 2003. As per Rule 68, in particular clause (9) thereof, of the Police Manual, contends counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's 2 name could not be continued after lapse of five years from the date of initial entry of his name in the said register. It is further submitted that only names of convicts can be entered in the Surveillance Register. In either case, the petitioner's name cannot be continued as is done by the police officials until the year 2011. 3. Both these contentions, in our opinion, are misplaced. In the first place, the petitioner has completely misread clause (9) of Rule 68 of the Police Manual. It does not restrict the entry of names of only convicts in the Surveillance Register. That interpretation is reinforced upon reading of clause (2) of Rule 68 of the Police Manual. The principle stated in clause (9) of Rule 68 is that after initial entry of the name of the concerned person in the Surveillance Register, it may be retained initially for a period of five years. In the event no criminal case is registered against the said person during the said period, the appropriate authority has discretion to delete the name of that person from the said register. However, if the person is involved in some criminal offence during the specified time, his name would be retained in the Surveillance Register for a period of at least two years from the date of commission of last offence by him. This mechanism is provided so as to identify the suspects and the potential criminals for maintaining the police record. The validity of the said provision is not in issue before us in this petition. Going by the scheme enunciated in Rule 68 of the Police Manual, no fault can be found with the action of Police officials of having continued the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance register. We say so because it is common ground that the petitioner was named as accused in offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code registered in the year 2007 which is less than five years from the date of his initial entry in the Surveillance Register. Indeed, the petitioner has been acquitted in connection with the said offence. However, the petitioner has now committed offence 3 in January 011 and his name has been included as an accused in CR No.02/2011 in respect of offence punishable under sections 326, 324, 506(2) read with 34 of IPC.. The trial in respect of the said offence is pending. In this view of the matter, continuation of the name of the petitioner from January 2011 would be justified in terms of Rule 68(9) of the Police Manual. 4. Taking over all view of the matter, therefore, no interference is warranted in this petition. Indeed, it will be open to the petitioner to assail the entry after expiry of the term specified in Rule 68 of the Police Manual. That challenge can be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. We place on record another grievance made in the petition that the Investigating Officer is acting hand in glove with his rival faction and was responsible for submitting remand application stating incorrect facts therein. That grievance can be made by the petitioner before the concerned Court where the remand application has been filed by the Investigating Officer. We have no manner of doubt that the concerned Court would consider the said grievance keeping in mind the position emerging from the material on record. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of on the above terms. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)