Granted bail on September 28, 2026 and still in jail on November 3: calling it a “very unusual” and “very disturbing” case of Illegal Detention After Bail, the Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of a Baghpat accused and asked the Uttar Pradesh government why compensation should not be paid.
New Delhi: An accused whom the Supreme Court had ordered released on regular bail on September 28, 2026 was still in jail when his application came up on Tuesday, November 3, and the Court directed the Jail Superintendent to release him immediately on a personal bond of Rs 10,000, while calling on the Uttar Pradesh government to show cause why compensation should not be awarded to him for his illegal detention [Saddam v. State of UP].
The order was passed by a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan on a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner, Saddam, in his disposed-of criminal appeal. The bench directed that a copy be sent to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
A “very unusual” case
The bench opened its order with this record:
“We have a very unusual case before us. Something very disturbing and we take serious cognizance of the same.”
After the Court’s bail order, the Court noted, all the petitioner had to do was furnish bail bonds before the court concerned. It then recorded why that had not happened:
“However, it appears that no lawyer is ready to represent the petitioner in the Court concerned for the reasons which prima facie appear to be quite obvious.”
Observing that despite the release order of September 28, 2026, “he is still in jail”, the bench directed the Jail Superintendent concerned to release him immediately from custody on obtaining a personal bond of Rs 10,000.
Show cause on compensation
The Court then turned to the State:
“State is called upon to show cause as to why appropriate compensation should not be awarded to the petitioner for his illegal detention in the custody so far, despite the fact that this Court ordered release on bail one and a half months back.”
The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, and the matter will next be taken up on December 3, 2026.
How he came to be in jail
Saddam is facing trial for offences under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (abetment of suicide) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (cheating by personation using a computer resource). He was arrested in connection with FIR No. 0563 of 2025 registered at Baghpat Police Station in Uttar Pradesh.
The Supreme Court’s September 28 order recorded that the allegations against him broadly centre around alleged cyber fraud and threats that caused mental distress to the deceased, leading to the deceased’s death by suicide. These allegations are yet to be tested at trial.
His bail application before the Allahabad High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7815 of 2026, was adjourned twelve times without the prayer for interim or regular release being decided on merits. He challenged the High Court’s order of February 27, 2026 before the Supreme Court.
The bail order of September 28
His counsel submitted before the Supreme Court that he had been in continuous custody since September 21, 2025, that the financial transactions of Rs 21,500 and other alleged transfers were traced to third-party accounts and not to his own bank account or UPI ID, that he had no prior criminal antecedents and that the investigation against him was substantially complete. The State opposed bail.
Allowing Criminal Appeal No. 4621 of 2026, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and released him on regular bail on terms to be fixed by the trial court, noting:
“Taking into consideration the period of custody undergone, the stage of proceedings, and the facts and circumstances of the case, a fit case is made out for enlarging the appellant on regular bail.”
The criminal case against the petitioner remains pending. The allegations against him are untested, the Supreme Court has expressed no view on the merits of the prosecution, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the order matters
A bail order is meant to restore liberty, not merely to record it. When an accused stays behind bars after the highest court has ordered his release, the continued custody has no legal basis, and the order treats it as illegal detention for which the State may have to pay. Personal liberty under Article 21 does not wait on whether a surety or a lawyer can be found at the trial court.
The order also shows the Court stepping in on the practical side of release. Instead of sending the petitioner back to the trial court to arrange bonds, it directed the jail to release him on a personal bond, and it flagged the matter to the Allahabad High Court’s Chief Justice, whose court had adjourned the bail plea twelve times. The State’s answer on compensation is due when the case returns on December 3.
Case Title: Saddam v. State of UP [Miscellaneous Application No. 3205/2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 4621/2026]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Praveen Kumar Jha, AoR, Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha and Dr. Ranjeet Bharti, Advocates, for the petitioner
If you or someone you know is struggling, please reach out to Tele-MANAS on 14416 for free, confidential mental health support.