Supreme Court: Cattle Transport Can't Be Presumed To Be For Slaughter Due To Mere Absence Of Documents

 Section 6 specifically indicates the offence of transportation of cattle for the purpose of slaughter or knowledge that such cattle are likely to be slaughtered. But for a mere presumption of such intention, by the Head Constable, PW3, there is nothing on record to show that the cattle were carried for slaughter. The reverse presumption provided by Section 11 would apply only if the essential ingredients for alleging the offence are proved before the Trial Court. In which event, the accused has the onus to prove that the transport for slaughter or the slaughter itself was not in violation of the provisions of the Act. The mere fact that the transport was not accompanied by any documents cannot lead to a presumption that the transport was for slaughter. The absence of documents to validate the transportation, if it is in violation of any statute, then the consequences should flow from that statute and cannot lead to an assumption of violation of the provisions of the Act. {Para 8}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No……….of 2026

[ @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.16871 of 2026 ]

Saurabh Bajaj  Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1076.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 29, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Hearing Of Accused Necessary When Cognizance Taken After BNSS Came Into Force, Though Complaint Filed Earlier

 From a reading of the first order passed, taking on

record the complaint and requiring the complainant’s

presence for taking evidence, as also the second order

passed finding prima facie case made out on which process

was issued, we are of the opinion that it is the second order

passed on 03.06.2026 that the judicial mind was applied, as

prima facie case was found, deeming the cognizance having

been taken. That being so, the Court had to summon the

accused and hear him before such cognizance was taken. {Para 12}

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2026

(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.14343 of 2026)

Umar and Anr. Vs  The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 23, 2026.

Citation:  2026 INSC 1058

Print Page

Supreme Court: Police Can Register FIR Even If Magistrate Rejected S.156(3) CrPC Application

The consequence is self-evident. The rejection of an application Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot curtail or extinguish the independent statutory obligation cast upon the Police Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If, notwithstanding such rejection, information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence is subsequently furnished to the Police, the statutory duty recognised in Lalita Kumari (supra) continues to operate with full force. {Para 43}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3931 of 2026 

Decided On: 19.08.2026

Pramod Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 887, MANU/SC/0915/2026.

Print Page

Released for Grief: Under-Trial Prisoners, Funeral and Shraddha Ceremonies, and How to Write the Order

An under-trial prisoner (UTP) can be allowed to attend a close relative's funeral or shraddha, either on short interim bail or in police custody. The court decides on the facts of each case. It weighs humanitarian and religious needs against the risk of flight, witness interference and harm to the trial. This article also sets out how a judge can approach and write such an order, with a sample order.

Why It Matters

Death rites are among the most important religious and social duties in Indian life. An under-trial is presumed innocent and is held only to secure his presence at trial. Refusing him a last farewell to a parent, spouse or child can therefore be harsh. Article 21 protects dignity even in custody, and Article 25 protects religious practice. Neither right is absolute. Both can be reasonably restricted for legitimate custodial and public-interest reasons.

Funeral and Shraddha Compared

Print Page