The Madras High Court granted bail to Savukku Shankar, a YouTuber, accused of misleading the public with false statements on a land case while holding that criticism of police investigation cannot warrant prosecution.

The Court held that the very registration of the criminal case against Savukku Shankar (Petitioner) was not maintainable. “The malafides on the part of the police is evident all over. I condemn the respondent,” the Court remarked.

A Single Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan remarked, “Democracy is all about opinions. In the market place of ideas, only those that have substance will stand. If a opinion is ill founded, it will fail in the long run. To foist a case against a person for making a certain assertion is indicative of a fascist approach. The target of a verbal attack can be any person. No one can be a holy cow. Prosecution is one thing. Arrest is entirely another.”

Advocate B Vetrivel represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate Arul Joseph Selvam appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was implicated as the second accused under Sections 221, 222, 353(1)(b), and 353(2) of the BNS. The case stemmed from his comments in a YouTube video, where he questioned the validity of a criminal case investigated by the Land Fraud Investigation Wing. The defacto complainant, a Police Officer, alleged that Shankar's comments misled the public and obstructed the investigation.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court stated that the Petitioner as a YouTuber was actively commenting on current issues and was entitled to the protection of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. “Criticism of police investigation cannot warrant prosecution,” it stated.

“I fail to understand as to how he was remanded to judicial custody in the first place. Even more surprising is the denial of bail by the Court below. Of late, we are witnessing registration of criminal cases and arrest of persons for having voiced certain opinions,” the Court explained. While police cannot be restrained in advance from acting in a malafide manner, the court held that Judicial Magistrates and Sessions Courts can certainly “step in to stem the rot.”

“The simplest thing they can do is to refuse remand,” it stated.

“Section 221 of BNS, 2023 can be registered only if a public servant is obstructed in the discharge of his public functions. I fail to understand as to how the investigation in Crime No.182 of 2024 will be obstructed by the comments made by the petitioner in his You Tube channel. The expression 'obstructs' occurring in Section 221 of BNS has a clear and precise meaning. It involves 'deliberate stoppage'. The petitioner has not stopped the investigating officer from proceeding with the investigation. The investigating officer must be having his own dictionary, where this word has a meaning that suits the convenience of the police.” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court held, “Accordingly, the petitioner, who is presently confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be released forthwith on bail.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.

Cause Title: A.Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. State (CRL OP.No.1212 of 2025)

Click here to read/download the Order



Madras High CourtJustice GR Swaminathan

Riya Rathore

    Assistant Editor

    Riya Rathore is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum. She completed her B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from O.P. Jindal Global University in 2018 and went on to pursue her LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law & Technology Law from the Centre for Post Graduate Legal Studies in 2019. Her research interests lie in the areas of Environmental Law, Public Policy, Criminal Justice, and Matrimonial Disputes—fields where the intersection of law and society can be explored. Her academic interests lie in the intersection of Intellectual Property Rights, Data Security, and Cyber Laws. She is also interested in Environmental Laws, Public Policy and Sustainable Development.