Re Legal

1

Relationship turning sour cannot be ground to book man for rape on false promise of marriage: Supreme Court
The Court observed that such cases not only burdens the Courts but also brings disrepute to an individual accused of such a heinous offence.
1

AR Rahman faces setback in copyright suit before Delhi High Court over 'Veera Raja Veera' song. Among other directions, the Court also ordered Rahman and Madras Talkies to deposit ₹2 crore with the Registry during the pendency of the copyright suit.
1

Supreme Court pulls up Rahul Gandhi for remarks against Savarkar but stays summons. The Court warned Gandhi that it will initiate suo motu action if he makes similar statements.
1

Savarkar defamation case: Pune court allows plea by Rahul Gandhi to bring historical evidence on record. Since Gandhi has claimed that his statements were based on historical facts, the trial would have to be held as a summons trial to allow detailed evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, the Court said.
1

Delhi court says Medha Patkar will not be jailed for defaming Delhi LG VK Saxena
Medha Patkar was sentenced to five months in jail by the trial court. However, the sessions court said the offence was not grave enough to warrant imprisonment.

Today’s

Preventive detention not an alternative for seeking cancellation of bail
The Supreme Court held that preventive detention is not the appropriate remedy for a detaining authority if an accused violates their bail conditions. The appellant, who was the wife of the detenu, had filed an appeal against a Kerala High Court judgement which had upheld the detention of her husband under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The husband was described as a “notorious goonda” who had several criminal cases pending against him. The detaining authorities said that he had violated his bail conditions and that his release would threaten “public order” . The Supreme Court reiterated that preventive detention should be exercised in rare instances and was an exception to the protection of life and liberty under Article 21. The Bench pointed out that no application was made to cancel the bail granted to the detenu. They noted that the detaining authority did not clearly make a case for needing preventive detention. Dhanya M v State of Kerala 6 June 2025 Citations: 2025 INSC 809 | 2025 SCO.LR 6(1)[5] Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan Read the Judgement here. Case comment It was stated therein that the detenu is a ‘notorious goonda’ of the district and is a threat to the society at large. Consequently, the detenu was taken into custody. Aggrieved by the order of detention dated 20th June, 2024, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala assailing the order of detention and praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus It is well settled that the provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature. The power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution itself, under Article 22(3)(b). However, this Court has emphasized in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu3 that the power of preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and, therefore, must be applied as such, as an exception to the main rule and only in rare cases. Held, In consonance with the above expositions of law, in our view, the attending facts and circumstances do not fall under the category of a public order situation. The observations made in the detention order do not ascribe any reason as to how the actions of the detenu are against the public order of the State. As discussed above, given the extraordinary nature of the power of preventive detention, no reasons are assigned by the detaining authority, as to why and how the actions of the detenu warrant the exercise of such an exceptional power. Held, the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the State to approach the competent Courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/ #legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #preventivedetention #publicorder #Article21 #cancellationofbail #threat Key words/phrases: Preventive detention—exception to Article 21—threat to public order—Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007—no preventive detention when alternate remedy of cancellation of bail is available

Yesterday’s

Threat of life or injury for extortion does not need transfer of property
The Supreme Court held that delivery of property is not necessary to charge a person under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for “putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.” The Court clarified that Section 387 criminalises a step prior to the actual extortion where property delivery is essential. The complainant and the accused run companies with the same name, M/S Balaji Traders and are involved in an ongoing intellectual property dispute. The complainant claimed that the accused threatened him with rifles, asking him to close down his business or pay five lakh rupees every month. The Trial Court found a prima facie offence under Section 387 and issued summons. The Allahabad High Court found that for a Section 387 offence to be made out, the victim must have transferred property or security to the accused. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court decision. The Bench held that Sections 385, 387, and 389 IPC are designed to punish the accused for an act committed for the purpose of extortion and not extortion itself. M/S. Balaji Traders v The State of U.P. 5 June 2025 Citations: 2025 INSC 806 | 2025 SCO.LR 6(1)[4] Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra Read the Judgement here. Case Comment Held, Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the view that the instant case is not fit for quashing as the two essential ingredients for prosecution under Section 387 IPC, as discussed supra have been prima facie disclosed in the complaint, (a) that the complainant has been put in fear of death by pointing a gun towards him; and (b) that it was done to pressurize him to deliver Rs.5 lakhs. The High Court, while quashing, has wrongly emphasized the fact that the said amount was not delivered; it failed to consider whether the money/property was delivered or not, is not even necessary as the accused is not charged with Section 384 IPC. The allegations of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt would itself make him liable to be prosecuted under Section 387 IPC. The natural corollary thereof is that the allegation of the criminal case being a counterblast is negated. Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/ #legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice # sec387 #extortion #death #grievoushurt #transferofproperty #offence #crime Key words/phrases: Section 387 IPC — Property transfer not essential — Threat of death or grievous hurt — Intellectual Property dispute — Prima facie offence upheld — Allahabad High Court decision overturned — Strict interpretation of criminal law

Terms And condition