The Supreme Court has called upon the Uttar Pradesh Government to show cause why compensation should not be awarded for the continued illegal detention of a man for one and a half months after he was ordered to be released on bail, Live Law reported. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan termed the case "very unusual" and "very disturbing" at the outset, noting that the applicant was still in jail in flagrant violation of the court's own earlier bail order, and ordered his immediate release.

Source: Live Law

Hearing a miscellaneous application in Saddam v. State of UP on November 3, the bench recorded that after its bail order all the petitioner had to do was furnish bail bonds before the court concerned, but that, in its words, "no lawyer is ready to represent the petitioner in the Court concerned for the reasons which prima facie appear to be quite obvious". It directed the Jail Superintendent concerned to release him immediately on a personal bond of Rs 10,000, LawChakra reported.

Source: LawChakra

Bail plea adjourned 12 times in the Allahabad High Court

Saddam was arrested in connection with FIR No. 0563 of 2025 registered at Baghpat Police Station, for offences under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (abetment of suicide) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The allegations against him broadly centre on alleged cyber fraud and threats said to have caused mental distress to the deceased, who died by suicide; these are allegations only, they have not been tested at trial, and the Supreme Court has expressed no view on the merits of the prosecution. His bail application before the Allahabad High Court was adjourned 12 times without an effective hearing on merits, after which he moved the Supreme Court, which enlarged him on regular bail on September 28, 2026, taking into account the period of custody undergone, the stage of proceedings and the facts and circumstances of the case. His counsel had submitted that he had been in continuous custody since September 21, 2025, that the alleged financial transactions of Rs 21,500 were traced to third-party accounts and not to his own bank account or UPI ID, and that he had no prior criminal antecedents.

Source: LawChakra

Show cause on compensation; copy sent to the Allahabad Chief Justice

Ordering his immediate release, the bench also called upon the State "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 court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The matter is next listed on December 3, 2026, when the State's answer on compensation is due.

Source: Live Law

The release order restores the liberty the September bail order was meant to give; it is not an acquittal. The criminal case against Saddam remains pending, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the next step in the detention matter is the State's response on compensation when the case returns to the Supreme Court on December 3.