THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.974 of 2010 Date : 30-8-2010 Between: Shaik Ibrahim s/o.Shaik Mahaboob, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business r/o.H.No.66/2RT, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .. Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : None appeared Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for Home The court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.974 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in opening suspect sheet against the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was involved in two criminal cases i.e., Cr.No.44/2003 registered for offences under Sections 307 and 394 IPC r/w. Section 25(1) of Indian Arms Act 1959 and Cr.No.244/2004 registered for offence under Section 324 IPC. The petitioner pleaded that both the said cases ended in his acquittal on 28-5-2007 and 19-7-2007 respectively. While those two cases were pending, respondent No.3- Police Station has opened a suspect sheet against the petitioner in the year 2006. It is however stated that the said suspect sheet has been transferred to 4th respondent-Police Station. The action of the respondents in not closing the said suspect sheet even though more than 2½ years had elapsed from the time of his acquittal in the above mentioned criminal cases, is assailed in this Writ Petition. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the two criminal cases in which the petitioner was accused, ended in his acquittal, as pleaded by him. He has further stated that the petitioner was bound-over and that at present no criminal case is pending against him. The facts noted above show that except the criminal cases referred to above which ended in petitioner’s acquittal as far back as the year 2007, no offence of any significance has been registered against him. In my opinion, mere fact that the petitioner was bound over, will not constitute a legitimate ground for continuing the suspect sheet. Though the Police are charged with duty to maintain public order by keeping track of the criminals and having surveillance over their activities, continuing suspect sheets on the ex-convicts only on the ground of their past criminal record would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Unless there is material to show that the persons with past criminal record are continuing with their activities, there can be no justification for the Police to continue the suspect sheet merely on account of their past history. On the facts of this case, I am of the view that in the absence of any complaint against the petitioner leading to registration of criminal cases except bind over cases, continuing suspect sheet against him for three years after his acquittal cannot be sustained in law. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 are directed to close the suspect sheet against the petitioner with liberty to them to bind-over the petitioner as and when the exigencies warrant and also to open a fresh suspect-sheet in the event the petitioner is found to have been involved in the commission of any fresh offence. ________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 30-8-2010 AM