The Madras High Court refused to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber and journalist Savukku Shankar in an extortion case, while imposing additional conditions on his bail. The bench of the High Court heard a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu police seeking cancellation of the interim bail that had previously been granted to Shankar by a vacation bench. The police argued that Shankar was misusing the liberty granted to him by the court, threatening witnesses and interfering with the investigation. Shankar had been arrested on the basis of a complaint alleging that he had extorted money from a film producer. Following his arrest, Shankar’s mother approached the High Court, filing a habeas corpus petition and seeking bail on medical grounds, as Shankar was said to be suffering from serious health issues requiring treatment.
A vacation bench of the Madras High Court had earlier granted interim bail to Shankar for a specified period, taking into account his medical condition and directing that he surrender before the authorities at the end of the bail period. After granting bail, the court had noted that multiple cases had been filed against Shankar that curtailed his personal liberty, and it had observed that dissenting voices should not be unduly targeted. In response to the police’s challenge to the interim bail, the High Court reserved its orders after hearing arguments from the parties. The court then delivered its decision, refusing to cancel the interim bail. Instead, the High Court imposed extra conditions aimed at regulating Shankar’s conduct while on bail.
The court directed that Shankar should not make any statements, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the case, including comments relating to the conduct of officers involved in the matter. He was also told not to communicate with or intimidate co-accused persons or witnesses in the case. The High Court additionally restricted Shankar’s movement, specifying that any travel should be for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment or for attending to legal matters connected with the case. The court made clear that any violation of these conditions would be viewed seriously and could lead to appropriate action. The High Court also directed the Dean of the Government General Hospital to constitute a medical board to examine Shankar’s health condition and to submit a sealed report to the court.
During the course of the hearing on the cancellation plea, controversy arose when counsel for Shankar’s mother raised concerns about perceived bias by the bench hearing the petition. An application expressing apprehension of bias was made during proceedings. The bench made clear that it would not stall the hearing on that basis and advised the parties to approach the Chief Justice if they sought a change of bench. When the matter was mentioned before a bench headed by the Chief Justice, the court strongly criticised the practice of levelling allegations against judges during proceedings, stating that such “mudslinging” against the judiciary would not be tolerated. The High Court emphasised that challenging an adverse ruling should be done by way of appeal rather than through allegations of bias.
The decision of the High Court to refuse cancellation of bail but impose additional conditions reflects the court’s effort to balance the police’s concerns about the conduct of Shankar while protecting the interim bail that had been granted on medical grounds. The High Court’s order outlined both restrictions on Shankar’s behaviour during the bail period and procedural directions for assessing his medical condition. The legal proceedings in relation to the extortion case against Shankar continued, with the interim bail subject to the conditions imposed by the High Court and any further developments in the trial process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.