The web that Tamil Nadu police weaved around YouTuber Savukku Shankar

CHENNAI: YouTuber Savukku Shankar's recent interview in which he slandered women personnel in the Tamil Nadu police force triggered an onslaught of cases against him across the State, including alleged possession of ganja. On Sunday, he was detained under the Goondas Act by the Greater Chennai Police (GCP), which had booked three cases against Shankar last week. DT Next takes a look at the contents of the FIRs registered against him:

Coimbatore city police

One of the first cases against Shankar, for which he was arrested by the Coimbatore city police on May 4, was based on the complaint filed by sub-inspector S Suganya, Cyber Crime Police Station, Coimbatore. According to the FIR, Suganya was trawling the internet as part of her work when she came across the video uploaded in the YouTube channel, Red Pix 24x7.

In the video, Shankar had made comments slandering the women officials of Tamil Nadu police. "The video was watched by several thousand persons. It is possible that it might create a perception among the general public about women police personnel like me and caused severe mental trauma to police women and their families," the FIR stated.

The Coimbatore police invoked sections 294 b (uttering obscenity), 353 (criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 509 (intention to insult modesty of woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

Shankar was traced and arrested in Theni with the help of the local police, and from there the next chapter of Shankar's saga unfolded.

Theni police

On the same day (May 4) the Coimbatore city police arrested Shankar from a resort in Theni, the Palanichettypatti police in Theni district booked Shankar and two of his associates under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for alleged possession of ganja.

According to the FIR registered by the Palanichettypatti police, SI Bakkiyam along with a team was directed to assist the Coimbatore police to execute the arrest of Shankar when a group was arguing with the Coimbatore police team outside The Riveira resort, where Shankar was staying.

SI Bakkiyam claimed that she was verbally abused and assaulted by Shankar and threatened by his associates, Rajarathinam and Ramprabhu. While this was unfolding, Coimbatore city police secured Shankar alone and took him back to Coimbatore.

The FIR states that while Shankar was taken to Coimbatore, the police team received a tip off about the presence of ganja in the vehicle he used. Theni tahsildar G Rani was alerted about the tip off and she was present at the scene when the police searched the vehicle. They seized 409 grams of ganja and Rs 51,640 in cash among other things from the car. The Theni police included Shankar in the case along with Ramprabhu and Rajarathinam, and arrested them.

Greater Chennai City Police

Adding to the woes of the YouTuber who was jailed by then, the cybercrime wing of the Greater Chennai City Police on Tuesday booked two cases against Shankar, one based on a six-year-old complaint and another based on a recent one.

The first complaint was filed by a woman journalist against Shankar six years ago for an alleged defamatory article he carried on his website against her. On May 7, the Cybercrime Wing of the CCB registered a case under sections 294 (b) (obscenity), 354 D (stalking), 506 (i) (criminal intimidation), 509 (intention to insult modesty of woman) of the IPC, and section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (TNPHW) Act.

According to the FIR in the complaint by the journalist, he published a blog slandering her which included CCTV footage of her meeting a source at a coffee shop. The article accompanying the footage made obscene and false allegations against her, which amounted to character assassination, she said in the complaint.

She added that Shankar continued to harass her with innuendo-laden social media posts. The complaint further said Shankar and his associates might have posed as police officers to coerce the coffee shop staff into handing over CCTV footage of her meeting, which is a violation of privacy.

She had filed complaints since 2018 but to no avail, according to the FIR. Based on the journalist's complaint, the Central Crime Branch of the city police booked Shankar under sections 294 b (uttering obscenity), 353 (criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 509 (intention to insult modesty of woman) of the IPC, section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and section 67 of Information Technology Act.

Further, one more case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Veeralakshmi, founder and leader of Tamil Munnetra Padai, against Shankar and Felix Gerald, another YouTuber and editor and CEO of Red Pix.

Veeralakshmi sought action against Shankar and Felix for airing the interview slandering women police personnel. "The sacrifices women and their family members make to join and shine in the police force is unparalleled. The speech by Savukku Shankar against women police in general and about law enforcement officers is disgusting and I seek severe action," Veeralakshmi stated in her complaint.

On May 10, the Chennai police booked one more case against Savukku Shankar based on a complaint by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) for allegedly fabricating and circulating documents related to Kilambakkam bus terminus. The same day, Theni police conducted searches at Shankar's residence and office in Chennai and allegedly seized several documents.

Tiruchy police

The Tiruchy police, too, booked Savukku Shankar and Felix based on a complaint by Musiri DSP MA Yasmin for the video slandering women officials. Felix was arrested by a special team of Tiruchy police in New Delhi on May 10. He was brought by train to Chennai on May 13 and taken by road to Tiruchy. Earlier, while dismissing the anticipatory bail petition by Felix, the Madras High Court remarked that YouTube channels were a threat to public harmony and directed the authorities to take necessary action against such YouTube channels.