'After Getting Out, You Start Making Reels' : Supreme Court Rejects Savukku Shankar's Plea Against Madras HC's Bail Conditions
'You were misusing your liberty, so High Court imposed conditions," SC told Shankar.
The Supreme Court today(January 30) refused to interfere with the bail conditions imposed by the Madras High Court while upholding the interim bail granted to YouTuber and Journalist Shankar @Savukku Shankar in connection with allegations of assault and extortion by a film producer.
The Madras High Court, while refusing to cancel his bail, stated that Shankar must not make any statement, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the case, including comments against the conduct of the officers. It has also asked Shankar not to interact with or intimidate the co-accused or the witnesses in the case. It restricted Shankar's movement, adding that any movement should be for the purpose of availing medical facilities or in connection with seeking legal assistance in the case.
The High Court had made it clear that any violation of the conditions shall be viewed seriously, and strict action will be taken against Shankar.
Shankar filed a Special Leave Petition seeking modification of the bail conditions. However, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma refused to entertain his plea.
At the outset, Justice Sharma orally remarked that Shankar is before the Court every week. Justice Sharma said: "This man is coming every week before us. His laptop is seized, he does not file an application before the Magistrate for release of laptop. He comes to the Supreme Court. His phone is seized, he comes to the Supreme Court for release of phone. These kinds of things are happening."
Justice Datta told Shankar's lawyer, Balaji Srinivasan, "Mr Balaji, you were granted bail on medical grounds."
However, Balaji contended that he was not granted bail on medical grounds. He submitted that the High Court, while granting bail, had criticised the State police for targeting Shankar. He added that the High Court had also noted that when Shankar complained of fever, the doctor had taken an ECG test and referred him to the Government hospital, considering that he had a past cardiac history. However, after 20 minutes, the doctor suddenly changed his opinion and told Shankar that everything was well with him.
Justice Datta remarked that Shankar was not granted bail on merits but on medical grounds. However, after being out on bail, he started making videos and reels. "After going out on bail, you were treated as out patients and thereafter you start making reels and videos and putting it on Youtube. That was not the purpose of the grant of bail. You are misusing your liberty, that is the finding given by the High Court. Now, your bail has not been cancelled, but the High Court has asked you not to talk about pending [case] but you are doing that."
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra(for the State of Tamil Nadu) submitted that the police needed his mobile phone for investigation, which he did not give. But after coming out on bail, he made a video showcasing that phone. He added that Shankar did not visit the hospital for which he was granted interim bail. To this, Justice Sharma remarked: "Because he was busy making reels."
While granting interim bail, a bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal of the High Court had noted that Shankar had serious health issues and needed treatment. The Tamil Nadu Police then moved for the cancellation of the bail on grounds that Shankar misused his liberty.
The Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, 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 (30th December) as out patient, he had not sought any other medical treatment at any other hospital.
He 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.
While the High Court bench comprising Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman refused to cancel his bail, it directed the Dean of the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to constitute a Medical Board consisting of experts to analyse and assess Shankar's medical condition. Shankar has been asked to appear before the board on 2nd February, which will examine him and submit a report, in a sealed cover, to the court on 3rd February 2026.
Balaji also expressed objection to going to the Rajiv Gandhi hospital, stating that there are apprehension that something similar would happen to him again, as has happened earlier when the Doctor changed his opinion. But Justice Datta said: "This is too much. How can you discredit doctors? You are saying you will not go to this hospital, so you will choose which medical board you will go to after?"
On January 20, the same bench refused to entertain Shankar's plea seeking to unseal his office in Chennai and also to direct the Tamil Nadu Police to return his devices seized during the investigation in connection with the present case.
Background
The bail interim was granted in a petition filed by Shankar's mother seeking medical treatment and temporary bail. Shankar's mother submitted that one day before the arrest, on 12th December, one of the employees of Shankar's media company had received Rs 94,000/- through Gpay from an unknown person.
While the employee was in the process of filing a complaint regarding the unauthorised transfer of money, the police abruptly came to Shankar's residence and arrested him. It was argued that the transfer was an orchestrated trap to falsely implicate Shankar and secure his arrest in a fabricated criminal case.
Shankar's mother Kamala sought directions from the police authorities to provide specialised medical treatment to Shankar, including a comprehensive evaluation and appropriate medical monitoring by a cardiologist and a diabetologist. A habeas corpus petition was also filed to forbid the Superintendent of Prisons from isolating Shankar from other prisoners and putting him in solitary confinement. An interim prayer was also sought to enlarge Shankar on interim bail.
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.
Case Details: SHANKAR @ SAVUKKU SHANKAR v THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS|Diary No. 5538-2026