Madras High Court grants interim bail to ‘Savukku’ Shankar in 17 criminal cases

The Madras High Court on Friday granted interim bail to YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar in 17 criminal cases after observing that repeated curtailment of his personal liberty by the Tamil Nadu Police can only be construed as an “abuse of process of law.”

A Christmas vacation Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal granted the conditional interim bail for a period of 12 weeks after taking into consideration that he was a cardiac patient implanted with two stents due to a 95% block in his coronary arteries besides being a chronic diabetic. “Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) includes the right to health, which is an important facet of the Constitution. It extends to prison inmates too and is widely recognised as a fundamental human right,” the Bench said. It took serious note of various instances of mental harassment allegedly meted out to the YouTuber in prison.

The orders were passed on a habeas corpus petition filed by Mr. Shankar’s mother A. Kamala to forbear the Superintendent of Puzhal Central Prison from isolating her son and subjecting him to solitary confinement. She had also filed a writ petition seeking medical treatment for him by a cardiologist and a diabetologist. She had also sought an interim relief of temporary bail for her son, on health grounds, for the purpose of undergoing medical treatment. Disposing of the petition for interim relief, the Bench took note that he was subjected to preventive detention in the past and had been incarcerated in multiple criminal cases.

“This court is unable to understand as to why one particular individual, who is an YouTube journalist, has been repeatedly incarcerated by the law enforcement agency. It raises suspicion as to whether the petitioner’s son herein has become a target of the ruling dispensation as alleged by her,” the Bench led by Justice Subramaniam wrote.

Highlighting he had been slapped with a second preventive detention order after the High Court had quashed his first preventive detention order in August 2024, the judges wrote: “This is highly unusual where the same individual had been slapped with two detention orders and the second detention order was passed immediately after the first detention order was set aside by this court.”

Observing the allegations of mental harassment being meted out to the petitioner’s son were serious in nature, the Bench said: “This can cause disrepute to the law enforcement agency. This court has time and again reiterated that due process of law shall not be misused to target specific individuals who have fallen out of favour with the State government.”

Authoring the order for the Bench, Justice Subramaniam also said, “The professionalism and discipline of the uniformed personnel shall not be compromised under any circumstances by indulging in such forceful action unnecessarily. This series of allegations, and the nature and mode of arrest as detailed in the affidavit raise suspicion as to the veracity of the allegations against the petitioner’s son.”

After granting interim bail, the judges directed Mr. Shankar to execute a personal bond for ₹1 lakh before the Superintendent of the prison. Imposing a few other conditions, the court directed him to surrender on or before March 25.