TN Police Move Madras High Court To Quash Interim Bail Granted To Savukku Shankar In Extortion Case, Argue That He Misused Liberty

When the matter came up before a bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman on Thursday, the bench directed Shankar's side to file their counters and decided to take up the case post the Pongal holidays on January 19.

It may be noted that Shankar was arrested on 13th December in connection with an offence under Sections 296(b), 353(lxc), 308(5), 61(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was alleged that Shankar had extorted money from a film producer.

Following his arrest, Shankar's mother Kamala had approached the High Court. A writ petition was filed seeking directions to the police authorities to provide specialised medical treatment to Shankar, including a comprehensive and evaluation and appropriate medical monitoring by a cardiologist and a diabetologist. A habeas corpus petition was also filed to forbear the Superintendent of Prison from isolating Shankar from other prisoners and putting him in solitary confinement. An interim prayer was also sought to enlarge Shankar on interim bail.

On December 26, 2025, a vacation bench of the Madras High Court granted interim bail to Shankar for a period of 3 months. The court had noted that Shankar had serious health issues and needed treatment. The court had also noted that the authorities had been filing cases against Shankar, curtailing his personal liberty.

Now, the Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, has approached the court seeking to cancel this interim bail.

In his plea, the officer stated that Shankar had sought interim bail for undergoing medical treatment, but after being released on bail, except visiting the cardiologist at Kauvery Hospital on one day (30^th December) as out patient, he had not sought any other medical treatment at any other hospital.

The officer also submitted that after being released, Shankar had made 8 videos, each spanning around 60 minutes, which show that he was not as medically crippled as he argued before the court. The officer submitted that the specialised medical treatment was only a ruse to escape the clutches of law.

The officer also submitted that Shankar has been misusing the liberty granted by the court and had been interfering with the investigation. It has been stated that Shankar had been threatening the witnesses and the investigating officers. It has been submitted that Shankar has been posting and disseminating defamatory content against the witnesses and the investigating officers online.

The officer also submitted that Shankar had not been cooperating with the investigation which was evident from the fact that in one of his videos, he had admitted to giving false information to the police. It was also submitted that Shankar had not shared details of his place of residence with the Investigating Officer which was one of the conditions for granting interim bail.

Thus, the police argued that Shankar is a regular offender and if he is allowed to remain on bail, he would adversely influence the witnesses, destroy the evidence by evading the investigation.

When the bench was informed that Shankar had been making videos and commenting upon the investigation, the court asked the State to collect all the videos and produce it before the court. The court also orally remarked that it would deal with all the issues and decided to take up the case after Pongal vacations.

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A Kamala

Case No: WPMP Crl 14 of 2026