The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the mother of YouTuber-journalist Savukku Shankar alleging that he was subjected to solitary confinement during his incarceration in December 2025 [A Kamala Vs State].A Bench of Justices P Velmurugan and M Jothiraman also disposed of a connected petition seeking specialised medical treatment for him in custody.In December 2025, the High Court had granted interim bail of 12 weeks to Shankar on medical and humanitarian grounds. He is required to surrender by March 25..During today's proceedings, Additional Public Prosecutor R Muniyapparaj submitted that Shankar must surrender upon expiry of the interim bail period.In response, Justice Velmurugan observed that it was for the police to take steps in accordance with law if Shankar failed to surrender after the expiry of bail. The Court declined to issue any further directions on the issue in view of the disposal of the main petitions..Shankar was arrested in December 2025 in connection with multiple criminal cases registered by the Tamil Nadu Police, including allegations linked to financial transactions and online content published through his YouTube platform “Savukku Media.”The petitions before the High Court also referred to a series of criminal cases registered against him over time, with his mother alleging that he was being repeatedly targeted due to his videos and commentary on public affairs..On December 26, 2025, a Division Bench granted Shankar interim bail for 12 weeks on medical and humanitarian grounds. The Court took note of his medical condition, including a serious cardiac ailment requiring stent implantation. The interim bail was granted across multiple FIRs, subject to various conditions..Subsequently, on a plea by the State seeking cancellation of bail, the Court declined to revoke the interim bail but imposed additional conditions to regulate his conduct during the investigation .These included a complete prohibition on making any public statements about his cases on media platforms, restrictions on contacting witnesses or co-accused. The Court had also limited his movement strictly for medical treatment and legal consultation.
