The Madras High Court on Wednesday (May 6, 2026) granted one day’s time for the Inspector of Puzhal police station to file a counter affidavit to YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar’s bail plea in an attempt-to-murder case registered pursuant to his arrest at Ongole in Andhra Pradesh on April 8, 2026.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri, holding the criminal side portfolio during the summer vacation court this week, said she would grant only one day’s time for the police to file its counter affidavit and ordered that it should be filed by Thursday (May 7, 2026), when the bail petition would be taken up for final disposal.

In his plea, Mr. Shankar said, the police had registered an FIR against him and four others on April 8, under Sections 296(b) (uttering obscene words), 125 (indulging in acts endangering the personal safety of others), 132 (using criminal force to deter public servant), 109(1) (attempt to murder), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He said, according to the prosecution’s case, he was arrested in Ongole for not having surrendered even after the expiry of his bail period in another criminal case and was brought to Chennai by road on April 8. The police vehicle was stopped near Kavankarai in Puzhal for him for a personal break. The other four accused – K. Malathi, S. Gopinath, Praveen, and Raju – had come to the spot in their car, picked up a quarrel with the police personnel, abused them, and began pelting stones at them.

Accusing Mr. Shankar, too, of having joined the other accused in pelting stones at the police personnel, the Puzhal police had registered an FIR on April 8, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Inspector of St. Thomas Mount police station and remanded all five accused to judicial custody on April 8.

However, denying any such stone-pelting having taken place that day, the YouTuber, in his bail petition, said: “The petitioner respectfully submits that no such occurrence had taken place and that the respondent police have cooked up and concocted a false story as though the petitioner had pelted stones against them while he was in their custody.”

He went on to state: “The petitioner submits that his mother (since dead) was seriously ill and had been continuouly undergoing treatment in hospitals at Bengaluru and that he had been takng care of her. In that connection, he visited Bengaluru and thereafter came to Andhra Pradesh. While so, he was forcibly and illegally secured by the respondent police at Ongole... While he was in the custody of the police, the present case has been falsely foisted against him with an ulterior motive.”

He said, the police had booked two new cases against him. The first one was for the alleged charge of having escaped in a car from a hotel in Chitoor, leading to a chase and his consequent arrest in Ongole, and the second one was for the charge of having pelted stones at the police after the arrest.

The petitioner also said that his bail petition in the attempt-to-murder case was dismissed by the Principal District and Sessions Court in Tiruvallur district on April 30 and hence, he had moved the High Court.