The Supreme Court on Friday, January 30, refused to interfere with the Madras High Court’s bail conditions while upholding the interim bail granted to YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar, who was arrested recently in connection with the alleged assault and extortion of a film producer.
The Madras High Court had earlier prohibited Shankar’s movement strictly to medical treatment or legal consultations connected with the case. The HC further restrained Shankar from making any statements—direct or indirect—about the pending criminal proceedings, including remarks concerning the conduct of investigating officers.
The apex court 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, stating that the High Court had acted within the permissible contours of judicial discretion in regulating the conduct of an accused released on bail.
Justice Datta, while reminding that Shankar was granted bail on medical grounds, objected to his speaking on subjudice matters. "After going out on bail, you are treated as an outpatient...and thereafter, you start making reels and videos and other things, and place them 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 shown in so many words that you are doing that," Justice Datta was quoted as saying by LiveLaw.
The bench also expressed frustration over Shankar’s frequent approach to the Supreme Court instead of resolving issues at the lower court.
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Luthra, appearing for the state, told the court that while Shankar claimed to be ill, he failed to follow up with medical treatments and was instead making videos for social media. 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.
"He comes out on this medical bail and goes on YouTube and says, here is the mobile phone... This is the mobile the police are looking for...He does not go to the hospital for treatment," Verdictum reported.
Taking note of this, the Supreme Court said if Shankar was ill, as he claims, he should have exercised restraint. The Court has also supported the direction for an independent evaluation by a Medical Board at the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to objectively assess Shankar's health.