The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to interfere with the conditions imposed by the Madras High Court while upholding the interim bail granted to YouTuber and journalist Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in a criminal case involving allegations of assault and extortion levelled by a film producer.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma refused to entertain a Special Leave Petition seeking relaxation and modification of the bail conditions, holding that the High Court had acted within the permissible contours of judicial discretion in regulating the conduct of an accused released on bail.
The Madras High Court, while rejecting the state’s plea for cancellation of interim bail, had imposed stringent conditions restraining Shankar from making any statements—direct or indirect—pertaining to the pending criminal proceedings, including remarks concerning the conduct of investigating officers. The High Court had further prohibited any interaction with or intimidation of co-accused and prosecution witnesses and restricted Shankar’s movement strictly to medical treatment or legal consultations connected with the case.
The High Court had also cautioned that any breach of the conditions would invite serious consequences, including cancellation of bail.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner assailed these restrictions as excessive and violative of personal liberty. However, the Bench expressed disapproval of the repeated invocation of its extraordinary jurisdiction for interlocutory reliefs. The Court noted that despite having appropriate remedies before the jurisdictional Magistrate or the High Court, the petitioner had repeatedly approached the Supreme Court for ancillary reliefs, including release of seized electronic devices.
Justice Datta observed that the interim bail had not been granted on merits of the criminal case but was premised on medical considerations. The Bench took note of the High Court’s finding that subsequent conduct indicated misuse of the liberty granted, particularly by engaging in online activity and publishing video content on digital platforms during the period of interim bail.
The Court underscored the settled principle that bail conditions are intended to balance individual liberty with the interests of justice, and that an accused cannot claim unrestricted freedom while criminal proceedings are pending. Relying on established jurisprudence, including the doctrine that bail is not a licence to obstruct investigation or influence public perception of a sub judice matter, the Bench found no reason to dilute the restrictions imposed by the High Court.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, submitted that the accused had failed to cooperate with the investigation, including by withholding his mobile phone, even as he continued to publish videos using the same device after being enlarged on bail. It was further contended that the medical grounds cited for seeking interim bail were belied by the petitioner’s conduct and the absence of sustained medical treatment following his release.
The Supreme Court also took note of the High Court’s direction constituting a Medical Board at the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to independently assess the petitioner’s medical condition. The High Court had ordered the Board to examine Shankar and submit its report in a sealed cover, a measure intended to ensure objectivity and institutional accountability.
When objections were raised to the constitution of the Medical Board at a government hospital, the Supreme Court expressed concern over attempts to cast aspersions on medical professionals and emphasised that an accused cannot dictate the forum or manner of medical evaluation ordered by a constitutional court.
Earlier, the Madras High Court had declined to cancel interim bail but recorded prima facie satisfaction that the liberty granted for medical reasons appeared to have been exploited for purposes unrelated to treatment. The High Court had relied upon submissions by the investigating officer indicating that, apart from a single outpatient visit to a private hospital, no substantive medical treatment had been undertaken, even as extensive online content was generated during the bail period.
The interim bail had originally been granted by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on a petition filed by Shankar’s mother, seeking specialised medical care and temporary release. The petition was accompanied by allegations of mala fide police action and claims that the criminal case was engineered through a fabricated financial transaction to facilitate his arrest.
Shankar was arrested on December 13 in connection with offences registered under Sections 296(b), 353(1)(c), 308(5), 61(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case also gave rise to ancillary proceedings, including a habeas corpus petition challenging conditions of custody.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to modify the bail conditions reinforces the principle that interim bail granted on humanitarian or medical grounds carries with it a heightened duty of restraint, and that courts are empowered to impose proportionate restrictions to prevent abuse of liberty and safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice process.
The post Supreme Court refuses to modify bail conditions imposed on Savukku Shankar by Madras High Court appeared first on India Legal.