"Law Should Not Be Used To Target Specific Individuals": Madras High Court Grants Interim Bail To Savukku Shankar
Upasana Sajeev
26 Dec 2025 2:36 PM IST
Listen to this Article
The Madras High Court, on Friday, granted interim bail to YouTuber and journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar. Shankar was arrested on December 13 on allegations of assault and extortion by a film producer.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal noted that Shankar had serious health issues and needed treatment. The court also noted that the authorities had been filing cases against Shankar, curtailing his personal liberty. The court was thus inclined to grant interim bail to Shankar from 26th December 2025 to 25th March 2026.
“Taking note of the submission before the court, and taking into consideration the medical condition of prison inmate and repeated curtailment of his liberty, court is inclined to release him on interim bail from 26/12/2025. The petitioner's son shall surrender before the authorities on or before 25/3/2026,” the court said.
While hearing the case on Friday, the vacation court also criticised the state police for targeting Shankar, who was exercising his fundamental right to dissent. The court criticised the authorities for running behind journalists whenever there was dissent.
“Why are you running behind journalists? Dissent is a democratic right. In the legislative assembly, dissent is respected. If anyone expressing dissent is harassed, you're going against the Constitution,” the court orally remarked.
The court also added that if the authorities wanted to take action against persons making baseless allegations, they could approach the civil court by way of defamation suit and seek an injunction.
“Some people would talk. Go file a defamation case, get an injunction. No one is preventing you. If you touch upon personal liberty, it interferes with fundamental principles of the Constitution,” the court orally remarked.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Shankar's mother, Kamala, seeking his medical treatment and temporary bail till such medical examination. A separate petition was also filed to forbear the superintendent of prison from isolating Shankar and subjecting him to solitary confinement.
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.
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.
When the cases were taken up, the court expressed its displeasure in the way the State had been filing cases against Shankar repeatedly. The court recounted how the State had issued two detention orders against Shankar. The court remarked that due to the whistleblowing activities undertaken by Shankar, the politicians wielding power were persistently foistering cases against Shankar.
The court noted that the allegations raised and the nature of Shankar's arrest would raise a suspicion about the abuse of power by the authorities. The court added that law should not be used to target individuals and such repeated clamping would send a wrong signal to the citizens of this country.
“Law should not be used to target specific individuals falling out of favour from authorities…Repeated clamping shown to the individual will not send a right signal to the citizen of the country,” the court said.
The court also remarked that the authorities not only harassed Shankar through abuse of power but also caused mental agony to his family members.
Thus, taking into consideration all the factors, the court was inclined to grant temporary bail to Shankar on condition that he would not leave the country or interact with the witnesses.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Ramasivasankar for Advocate Christopher
Counsel for Respondent: Mr P Muniapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
Case No: WP Crl 1791 of 2025
Next Story