New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the immediate release of an accused who remained in jail more than five weeks after the Court itself granted him bail, because no lawyer was ready to represent him before the court concerned to furnish bail bonds.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan, on 3 November 2026, took serious cognizance of the matter, ordered his release on a personal bond of ₹10,000, and called upon the State of Uttar Pradesh to show cause why compensation should not be awarded to him for his illegal detention.
The Court was hearing Miscellaneous Application No. 3205 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 4621 of 2026, filed by Saddam against the State of U.P., on an application for modification (I.A. No. 329957/2026). The Bench began by saying that it had a “very unusual case” and that it was “something very disturbing” which it took serious cognizance of.
The petitioner is facing trial for an offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in connection with FIR No. 0563 of 2025 registered at Baghpat Police Station, Uttar Pradesh. As recorded in the Supreme Court’s earlier order, the allegations broadly relate to alleged cyber fraud and threats causing mental distress to a person who later died by suicide.
On 28 September 2026, in Criminal Appeal No. 4621 of 2026, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order of 27.02.2026, which had adjourned his bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7815 of 2026) without deciding it, and ordered his release on regular bail, on terms to be set by the trial court. That earlier order records that the application had been adjourned 12 times, that he had been in continuous custody since 21.09.2025, that the transactions of ₹21,500 and other transfers were traced to third-party accounts and not to his bank account or UPI ID, and that he had no prior criminal antecedents.
The Bench noted that, after that order, all that the petitioner had to do was to furnish bail bonds before the court concerned. However, it appeared that no lawyer was ready to represent him in that court “for the reasons which prima facie appear to be quite obvious”, and the Court observed that, despite being ordered to be released on bail on 28 September 2026, he was still in jail.
In these circumstances, the Court directed the Jail Superintendent concerned to release the petitioner immediately from custody on obtaining a personal bond of ₹10,000. It called on the State to show cause why appropriate compensation should not be awarded to him for his illegal detention so far, despite the Supreme Court’s order for release one and a half months earlier.
The Court also directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. The matter has been listed on 3 December 2026.
Case Title: Saddam v. State of U.P., Miscellaneous Application No. 3205 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 4621 of 2026
