Supreme Court Dismisses Savukku Shankar Plea on Bail Conditions Challenge

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma refused to entertain Shankar’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeking modification of the conditions, observing that he had misused the liberty granted to him.

At the outset, Justice Sharma expressed displeasure over Shankar’s repeated approach to the Supreme Court for interim reliefs.

“This man is coming every week before us. His laptop is seized, he doesn’t move the Magistrate. His phone is seized, he comes to the Supreme Court. These kinds of things are happening,” Justice Sharma remarked orally.

Justice Datta reminded Shankar’s counsel, Senior Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, that the bail was granted on medical grounds, not on merits.

The Bench sharply criticised Shankar for allegedly creating online content after being released on interim bail. “After going out on bail, you were treated as outpatients and thereafter you start making reels and videos and putting them on YouTube. That was not the purpose of the grant of bail,” Justice Datta observed.

The Court noted that while the Madras High Court had not cancelled the bail, it had found that Shankar was misusing his liberty, and therefore imposed strict restrictions, including a gag order on public commentary about the pending case.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, submitted that Shankar’s mobile phone was crucial for investigation, but he refused to hand it over.

Luthra pointed out that despite claiming poor health to secure interim bail, Shankar later released videos showing the same device. “He didn’t even go to the hospital for which bail was granted,” Luthra said.

To this, Justice Sharma quipped: “Because he was busy making reels.”

The interim bail had earlier been granted by a Madras High Court bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice P. Dhanabal, which took note of Shankar’s serious medical conditions.

However, the Tamil Nadu Police later sought cancellation of bail, stating that Shankar had visited a cardiologist only once as an outpatient, and had not undergone any specialised treatment thereafter. According to the police, Shankar uploaded eight videos of nearly one hour each after release, demonstrating that his medical condition was not as debilitating as claimed.

During the exchange, the Bench questioned attempts to discredit government doctors and suggested restraint if serious illness was being claimed. The Court also took note of allegations that Shankar continued to target investigating officers during the bail period.

Balaji sought permission to withdraw the plea, stating that a separate application for modification had been filed. However, the Bench declined the request. The matter relates to bail conditions imposed by the Madras High Court while upholding Shankar’s interim bail in connection with criminal allegations made by a film producer.

The Court ultimately held that it was not inclined to interfere and dismissed the petition.

Shankar was arrested on December 13 under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 296(b), 353(1)(xc), 308(5), 61(2), and 351(3). The interim bail application was moved by Shankar’s mother, Kamala, who alleged that the arrest was preceded by a suspicious ₹94,000 GPay transfer to an employee of Shankar’s media company, which she claimed was part of a trap to falsely implicate him.

In a related news, last week, the Court had refused to entertain a plea filed by Shankar seeking directions to unseal his office in Chennai and for the return of devices seized in connection with allegations of assault and extortion levelled by a film producer. The Bench had dismissed the petition, observing that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for every grievance, and directed Shankar to pursue his remedies before the jurisdictional judicial magistrate.