YouTuber Savukku Shankar walked out of Puzhal Central Prison on Saturday after the Madras High Court granted him three months of interim bail, bringing temporary relief to a case that has repeatedly raised questions about the use of state power against outspoken digital journalists.
Shankar was arrested on December 13 from his residence in Chennai on allegations of assault and extortion involving a film producer.
Following his release, A. Shankar alias Savukku Shankar, a video journalist and CEO of Savukku Media Private Limited, posted a photograph on X with the caption: "Did you think I would be defeated?"
The interim bail was granted on December 26 after a vacation Bench of Justices S. M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal heard an appeal filed by Shankar’s mother, A. Kamala.
The court allowed bail from December 26, 2025, till March 25, 2026, citing Shankar’s medical history, including cardiac ailments and diabetes. Kamala had urged the court to release her son so he could receive necessary medical treatment.
In its common order, the Bench said: "In the light of the submissions made before the court and taking into consideration the medical condition of the 'prison inmate / petitioner’s son and repeated curtailment of his personal liberty, this court finds it fit to release Shankar on interim bail for 12 weeks from December 26, 2025."
The court directed Shankar to execute a personal bond of Rs one lakh before the Prison Superintendent as a condition for his release. The judges went beyond the immediate bail plea to question the pattern of repeated arrests.
"This court is unable to understand as to why one particular individual who is a YouTube journalist has repeatedly been incarcerated by the law enforcement agency. It raises suspicion as to whether the petitioner’s son herein has become a target of the ruling dispensation as alleged by her," the Bench observed.
Referring to Shankar’s past, the court noted that the Goondas Act had been invoked against him multiple times for expressing his views through YouTube videos critical of the state government.
It recalled that a detention order against him had been set aside by the High Court in August 2024.
"This raises serious questions as to whether there has been any abuse of the process of law on the part of the state government’s law enforcement agency," the Bench said.
Calling the sequence of events unusual, the judges added: "This is highly unusual where the same individual has been slashed with two detention orders and the second detention order was passed immediately after the first detention order was set aside by this court."
The court also flagged the allegations levelled against the police, particularly claims of mental harassment and repeated targeting. Such actions, it said, could bring disrepute to the law enforcement agency.
Reminding the state of its obligations, the Bench underlined that due process must not be misused to target individuals who have fallen out of favour with the government.
