The Supreme Court of India refused to interfere with the bail conditions imposed by the Madras High Court on YouTuber and Shankar @Savukku Shankar, while upholding the interim bail granted to him in connection with allegations of assault and extortion levelled by a film producer.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma declined to entertain a Special Leave Petition filed by Shankar seeking modification of the stringent conditions imposed by the High Court.
“This Man Is Coming Every Week Before Us”
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made sharp oral observations on Shankar’s repeated approaches to the apex court.
“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 Sharma remarked.
Justice Dipankar Datta reminded Shankar’s counsel, Balaji Srinivasan, that bail had been granted only on limited grounds.
“Mr Balaji, you were granted bail on medical grounds,” Justice Datta said.
Bail Was Not on Merits, Court Says
Although Balaji Srinivasan disputed this, contending that the High Court had criticised the State police for targeting Shankar, Justice Datta reiterated the basis of the relief.
“You were not granted bail on merits but on medical grounds,” Justice Datta said.
The judge further noted that Shankar’s conduct after release did not align with the purpose for which bail was granted.
“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,” Justice Datta observed.
Police Say Bail Was Misused
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, submitted that Shankar had failed to cooperate with the investigation.
He told the court that the police required Shankar’s mobile phone for investigation, which he did not hand over. Instead, after being released on bail, Shankar allegedly made a video showcasing the same device.
Luthra further submitted that Shankar did not pursue the medical treatment for which interim bail was granted.
To this, Justice Sharma remarked tersely: “Because he was busy making reels.”
High Court’s Directions Remain Intact
Earlier, the Madras High Court, while refusing to cancel Shankar’s interim bail, had imposed strict conditions. It barred him from making any statement, directly or indirectly, related to the case, including remarks against the conduct of police officers. He was also restrained from interacting with or intimidating co-accused or witnesses.
The High Court further restricted Shankar’s movement, permitting travel only for medical treatment or legal consultation, and warned that any violation of the conditions would be viewed seriously.
Medical Board Ordered
The Tamil Nadu Police had sought cancellation of bail, alleging misuse of liberty. The Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, informed the court that after securing interim bail on medical grounds, Shankar had visited a cardiologist at Kauvery Hospital only once, on December 30, as an outpatient, and had not pursued any further treatment.
The officer also pointed out that Shankar had uploaded eight videos of around 60 minutes each after his release, suggesting that his plea of serious medical incapacity was exaggerated.
The police submitted that the claim of specialised medical treatment was merely a ruse to evade the law.
While refusing to cancel bail, a Madras High Court bench comprising Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman directed the Dean of Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to constitute a Medical Board to assess Shankar’s health.
Shankar has been directed to appear before the Medical Board on February 2, with the Board instructed to submit its report in a sealed cover to the High Court on 3 February 2026.
“This Is Too Much”
When Shankar’s counsel objected to appearing before the Medical Board at the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, citing apprehensions based on a previous medical opinion being changed, Justice Datta rejected the argument outright.
“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?” Justice Datta said.
Earlier Pleas Rejected
On January 20, the same Supreme Court bench had refused to entertain Shankar’s plea seeking to unseal his office in Chennai and to direct the Tamil Nadu Police to return electronic devices seized during the investigation.
Background of the Case
Shankar was arrested on December 13 under Sections 296(b), 353(lxc), 308(5), 61(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Interim bail was granted in a petition filed by his mother, Kamala, who alleged that her son was falsely implicated through a fabricated financial transaction. She claimed that on December 12, a day before the arrest, an employee of Shankar’s media company had received ₹94,000 via GPay from an unknown person, and while the employee was preparing to lodge a complaint, the police arrested Shankar.
It was contended that the transaction was an orchestrated trap to falsely implicate him.
Kamala also sought directions for specialised medical care for her son, including evaluation by a cardiologist and diabetologist, and filed a habeas corpus petition objecting to his alleged isolation in prison.
With this order, the Supreme Court has effectively endorsed the Madras High Court’s view, leaving the bail conditions unchanged.
Source: LiveLaw
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
