Bail Was Not Granted For Making Reels: Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bail Conditions Imposed On YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar

The Supreme Court, today, refused to interfere with the bail conditions imposed by the Madras High Court upon YouTuber and Journalist Savukku Shankar while upholding his interim bail in connection with allegations of assault and extortion by a film producer.

The Madras High Court, while refusing to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber-Journalist Shankar@Savukku Shankar, has observed that video journalists must adhere to high ethical standards to maintain public trust and credibility.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma refused to interfere with the order passed by the Madras High Court. 

Advocate Balaji Srinivasan appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the Respondents.

Justice Datta remarked, "After going out on bail, you are treated as an outpatient...and thereafter, you start making reels and videos and other things, place 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...What the High Court has said is that you don't talk about the pending complaint...You are doing that...The High Court has showed in so many words that you are doing that."

Advocate Balaji, representing Shankar, argued that Shankar faced medical negligence while in custody. He stated that on December 18, 2025, Shankar developed a fever and was taken to Saidapet Government Hospital. Although an ECG initially showed variations and a doctor recommended a transfer to a larger facility due to cardiac history, the medical opinion was abruptly changed twenty minutes later. Balaji submitted that there is a deep apprehension regarding the reliability of government doctors, claiming they eventually declared Shankar fit despite his health concerns.

In response, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Luthra, appearing for the Police, argued that Shankar had misused the liberty granted by his interim bail. Luthra pointed out that while Shankar claimed to be ill, he failed to follow up with medical treatments at the hospitals he visited. Instead, he submitted that Shankar spent his time making social media reels and videos. Luthra also submitted that Shankar refused to cooperate with the investigation regarding a mobile phone, only to later flaunt the device in a video after his release.

Luthra submitted, "He comes out on this medical bill and goes on YouTube and says, here is the mobile phone...This is the mobile the police is looking for...He does not go to the hospital for treatment."

Justice Sharma remarked, "Because he was busy making reels and all."

Justice Datta remarked that if the bail was granted on medical grounds, it was not intended for the Petitioner to spend his time making videos. The court suggested that if Shankar was truly as ill as claimed, he should have exercised restraint. Consequently, the Court supported the direction for an independent evaluation by a Medical Board at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to objectively assess Shankar’s health.

Ultimately, the Bench declined to interfere in a way that would favour the Petitioner’s current stance. When Advocate Balaji attempted to withdraw the application for modification, the Court refused to allow it. The Court emphasized that the medical evaluation would serve the interests of justice and ensure that the concession of interim bail was not being misused on untenable grounds.

Background

Shankar was arrested on December 13, 2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 353(1)(c), 308(5), 61(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS") and was remanded to judicial custody. The Respondent/Mother of the accused approached the Court seeking an interim bail on the grounds that her son was suffering from serious cardiac ailments, diabetes and hypertension and required specialised medical treatment. Taking note of the medical condition projected and considering the repeated curtailment of personal liberty, the Court granted interim bail for a period of twelve weeks, subject to stringent conditions.

The High Court had observed, “Condition (IV) of the interim bail order dated 26.12.2025 expressly stipulated that the respondent’s son, shall not interact with any witnesses or attempt to hamper, influence, or tamper with them in the criminal cases. Despite this clear restriction, the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor demonstrate that this condition has been materially violated. The respondent’s son concealed the mobile phone alleged to have been used to threaten the complainant, provided false information regarding the same after being released on interim bail, and publicly displayed the phone on YouTube and other media. In addition, he forcibly took A3/Nithish Kumar during an ongoing enquiry without the knowledge of the Investigating Officer. These actions obstructed the investigation, intimidated potential witnesses, and clearly constitute a deliberate breach of the interim bail conditions dated 26.12.2025.”

The Court also held that due process of law cannot be misused to target specific individuals who have fallen out of favour with the State Government, and that repeated curtailment of personal liberty in such circumstances amounts to abuse of the process of law.

The Madras High Court expressed serious concern over the repeated incarceration of a single individual who was engaged in expressing dissenting views through digital media.

The Bench noted that the history of successive detention orders and criminal cases raised suspicion as to whether the law enforcement machinery was being misused.

While stating that “this is highly unusual where the same individual has been slashed with two detention orders”, the Bench further remarked that “this raises serious questions as to whether there has been any abuse of process of law on the part of the State Government’s Law Enforcement Agency”.

Cause Title: A Shankar@ Savukku Shankar v. The State of Tamil Nadu [Diary No. 5538 of 2026]