JODHPUR, June 20 -- The Rajasthan High Court has held that a conviction is not a mandatory requirement for opening a history sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, observing that a history sheet may be opened against a person who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime. At the same time, the court directed the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, to reconsider whether the petitioner's history sheet should continue in view of his subsequent acquittal and discharge in the criminal cases that led to its reopening. Justice Rekha Borana disposed of a writ petition filed by Iqbal Khan, who had challenged a 2014 order reopening his history sheet after it had earlier been placed in the silent bag in 2005. The petitioner argued that he had never been convicted and therefore could not be treated as a habitual offender. He also submitted that after being acquitted and discharged in the 2012 cases, he continued to receive preventive notices every six months and was required to execute bonds, causing him mental harassment. Rejecting the petitioner's interpretation of the law, the bench held that the definition of a habitual offender under the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, cannot be imported into the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. The bench observed that Rule 4.4(3)(b) does not presuppose any conviction and specifically stipulates that conviction is not mandatory. The bench further held that Rule 4.9(2) specifically permits opening a history sheet for any person who is reasonably believed to be habitually addicted to crime or to be an aider or abettor of such a person. "The suspect may or may not have been convicted of any crime. Even apart from any conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that he is a habitual offender." The bench found that the police could not be faulted for reopening the petitioner's history sheet in 2014 because, after it had been placed in the silent bag in 2005, two FIRs and one complaint were registered against him in 2012. The respondents also stated that the petitioner had been involved in communal riots in Krishnaganj village that year. However, the bench noted that the petitioner was later acquitted in one 2012 case and discharged in the other, while the respondents had not alleged his involvement in any criminal activity after 2012....