Madras High Court Grants Bail To Savukku Shankar In Alleged Stone Pelting And Threat Case Registered During Police Custody

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in Crime No. 302 of 2026, registered for offences under Sections 296(b), 125, 132, 109(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

A Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed: “A preventive detention order may have its own life and validity subject to challenge in appropriate proceedings. However, the mere existence of such a detention order cannot denude this Court of its jurisdiction to consider a bail petition arising out of a particular crime. The entitlement to bail in a criminal case has to be examined independently of the facts of that case.”

Advocate Arun Anbumani appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor A. Damodharan appeared for the State.

Background

According to the prosecution, Savukku Shankar was arrested in Andhra Pradesh on April 8, 2026 and was being brought to Chennai by a police team. The prosecution alleged that when the police vehicle stopped near Kavangarai to enable the petitioner to answer nature’s call, certain co-accused persons arrived in another car, picked up a quarrel with police personnel, abused them, pelted stones and threatened them.

The prosecution further alleged that Shankar also joined the other accused persons, threw stones and caused panic among the public, leading to registration of Crime No.302 of 2026.

Seeking bail, the petitioner contended that the prosecution's case was “artificial, concocted and inherently unbelievable” since he was admittedly in police custody and physical control of the police at the relevant time.

The petitioner further claimed that there were serious contradictions between the prosecution's versions in Crime No.258 of 2026 and the present FIR. According to the petitioner, the same individual and the same vehicle were projected in two mutually inconsistent versions on the same day.

The prosecution opposed bail on the ground that police personnel had been abused and attacked, and further pointed out that the petitioner had already been detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, commonly known as the Goondas Act.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the High Court reiterated the settled principles governing bail jurisprudence. The Court observed: “Bail jurisprudence rests on the solemn principle that personal liberty cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law and only for reasons which are germane to the necessity of continued detention.”

The Court further observed that while considering a bail plea, it was not expected to conduct a “mini trial” or render conclusive findings on disputed facts, but was nevertheless duty-bound to examine whether continued incarceration was necessary.

While examining the prosecution allegations, the Court noted that the gravamen of the case was that the petitioner and co-accused abused police personnel, pelted stones and caused panic among the public.

However, the Bench observed: “The allegation of stone pelting and threat is sought to be brought within the other penal provisions cited in the FIR. However, the materials presently placed before this Court would show that the petitioner was already in the custody of the police when the alleged incident is said to have occurred.”

The Court clarified that the said circumstance was relevant only at the stage of bail and “is not to be treated as a final pronouncement on the truth or falsity of the prosecution case.”

The High Court also took note of the alleged contradiction highlighted by the petitioner regarding the role attributed to the same individual and the same vehicle in two different prosecution versions on the same day. The Court observed that though the effect of such contradiction would ultimately be a matter for investigation and trial, the circumstance “cannot be brushed aside altogether while considering the necessity of further detention.”

Rejecting the State’s contention that bail could not be considered because the petitioner had already been detained under the Goondas Act, the Court held that preventive detention and punitive custody in a criminal case “operate in different fields.”

The Bench held that the bail petition was maintainable and had to be considered independently on its own merits.

The Court further observed: “The liberty of a citizen is not to be weighed lightly merely because allegations are grave. The law insists that liberty and investigation must be balanced with judicial care.”

Emphasising the necessity of balancing liberty with investigation, the Court observed: “Where the presence of the accused can be secured by conditions and where safeguards can neutralise the apprehensions of the prosecution, continued incarceration would not be justified merely as a matter of course.”

The Court ultimately held that, considering the period of incarceration, the nature of allegations, the fact that the petitioner was already in police custody at the time of the alleged occurrence, and the inconsistencies pointed out in the prosecution's case, the petitioner was entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court allowed the bail petition and directed the release of Savukku Shankar on bail in Crime No.302 of 2026, subject to conditions including execution of bond, daily appearance before police, cooperation with investigation and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.

The Court clarified that the observations made in the order were confined only to the disposal of the bail petition and would not influence investigation, trial or any other proceedings arising out of the FIR.

Cause Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Inspector of Police

Click here to read/download Judgment