Uncategorized

Jananayagan bail case HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL CRL OP NOS.11588, 12481, 12155 AND 11573 OF 2026 AND CRL.MP.NOS.8613, 8866, 8867 AND 8618 OF 2026 CRL.O.P.NO.11588 OF 2026 Rajesh The State Rep. by Inspector of Police CCD-I, CCW-SCCIC, Chennai.

by Sekar Reporter · May 26, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.05. 2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
CRL OP NOS.11588, 12481, 12155 AND 11573 OF 2026
AND
CRL.MP.NOS.8613, 8866, 8867 AND 8618 OF 2026
CRL.O.P.NO.11588 OF 2026
Rajesh
The State Rep. by
Inspector of Police
CCD-I, CCW-SCCIC, Chennai. Vs. … Petitioner / A8
(Crime No.47 of 2026) … Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to grant bail to the petitioner pending investigation in Crime No.47 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Ms.J.Kamalini
For Respondent : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan,
Government Advocate (Criminal side) For Intervenor : Mr.Vijayan Subramanian CRL.O.P.NO.12481 OF 2026
1. S.Selvam
2. S.Prashanth
3.S.Rajini
The State Rep. by
Inspector of Police
CCD-I, CCW-SCCIC, Chennai. Vs. … Petitioners / A1, 2 & 4
(Crime No.47 of 2026) … Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail concerned in Crime No.47 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCD-I, CCW-SCCIC, Ashok Nagar, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Parthiban
For Respondent : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan,
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
For Intervenor : Mr.Vijayan Subramanian
CRL.O.P.NO.12155 OF 2026
Srinath @ Sriram … Petitioner / A6
Vs.
The State Rep. By
Inspector of Police
CCW – State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre Police Station, CCD-I, Chennai – 600 083.
(Crime No.47 of 2026) … Respondent / Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to pass an order enlarging the petitioner / 6th accused on bail in Crime No.47 of 2016 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhakaran
For Respondent : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
For Intervenor : Mr.Vijayan Subramanian
CRL.O.P.NO.11573 OF 2026
1.Sanjay
2.Bala @ Balakrishnan
3.Manigandan
4.Ruthran … Petitioners / Accused
Vs.
The State Rep. By
Inspector of Police
State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre, Cyber Crime Wing, Hqrs, Chennai.
(Crime No.47 of 2026) … Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to release the petitioner on bail connected in crime No.47 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.I.V.Kabilan
For Respondent : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Vijayan Subramanian
COMMON ORDER
The captioned petitions are filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking bail by the petitioners / accused persons who were charged with the offences under Sections 61 (2), 306, 316(2) & 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections
43 & 66, 66(B) and (C) read with 84B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 51, 63 (a) & 65, 65A, 65B of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 6AB read with Section 7(1A) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, in Crime No.47 of 2026 on the file of respondent-police.
2. The petitioners in C.R.L. O.P. Nos.11573, 11588 & 12155 of 2026 were arrested on April 11, 2026 and remanded to judicial custody on April 12, 2026. The petitioners in C.R.L. O.P. No.12481 of 2026 was arrested on
April 15, 2026 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day viz., April 15, 2026.
3. ‘K.V.N. Productions L.L.P.’ is the intervenor in all the Criminal
Original Petitions.
4. Case of the prosecution is that the petitioners / accused persons pirated the film ‘Jananayagan’ produced by ‘K.V.N. Productions L.L.P.’ even before its CBFC certification and theatrical release. According to the prosecution, one Pradeep is the editor of the film. The petitioner / Accused No.1- Prasanth being a freelance editor under him, accessed the computer in which the original print of the film was stored, copied it to a hard disk with the help of the petitioner / Accused No.2 – Selvam, and then, Accused Nos.1 and 2 watched the same along with Accused Nos.3 and 4, who are all close friends. Further, they circulated the same in multiple online and social platforms in a mass scale and also thereby reaped monetary benefits. In short, prosecution’s case is that the petitioners / accused persons illegally accessed, pirated, watched and mass circulated the film, and thereby committed breach of trust and caused a huge financial loss to the production company.
5. Mr.Rajadurai, learned Counsel representing Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Counsel on record for the petitioners in C.R.L. O.P. No.12481 of 2026 / Accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 submits that Accused Nos.1 and 2 are detained under Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982 (Goondas Act). Hence, he not presses the Criminal Original Petition qua Accused Nos.1 and 2 and hence, the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed by this Court qua Accused Nos.1 and 2.
5.1. Learned Counsel further submits that Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 (Prasanth, Selvam and Rajini) are brothers. Accused No.4 – Rajini is a practicing advocate who is in no way connected with the offences alleged. Accused No.4 did not commit any offence as alleged. He did not copy, download, pirate, forward, upload or disseminate the film in any manner. There is no incriminating material against Accused No.4. He has deep roots in the society and has been under incarceration since April 15, 2026. He is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to grant bail to Accused No.4 – Rajini.
6. Mr.I.V.Kabilan, learned Counsel for the petitioners in C.R.L. O.P.
No. 11573 of 2026 / Accused Nos.7 to 10 submits that Accused No.7 –
Bala @ Balakrishnan is detained under Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982 (Goondas Act). Hence, he not presses the Criminal Original Petition qua Accused No.7 and hence, the same is hereby dismissed qua Accused No.7.
6.1. As regards Accused Nos.8 & 9 (Sanjay & Manikandan), learned Counsel fairly submits that, being huge fans of the protagonist of the film, they merely watched the pirated copy of the film out of curiosity and did nothing more; they did not steal, pirate or circulate the same. As regards Accused No.10 – Rudran, he submits that he did not commit any offence as alleged; he did not even watch the film. He has been falsely foisted in the case merely because he is a friend of Accused Nos.8 & 9. Accused Nos.8 to 10 are ready to co-operate with the investigating agency. They are also ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
Accordingly, he prays to grant bail to Accused Nos.8 to 10.
7. Mr.G.Prabakaran, learned Counsel for petitioner in C.R.L. O.P.
No. 12155 of 2026 / Accused No.6 – Srinath @ Sriram submits that Accused No.6 merely watched the film out of curiosity and did not commit any other offence as alleged. Further, the respondent – police failed to serve grounds of arrest and ’41 A Notice’ to Accused No.6. Accused No.6 has been under incarceration since April 12, 2026. Considering the period of incarceration, further detention would not be necessary. He is permanently employed in a renowned private company. He is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to grant bail to Accused No.6 – Srinath @ Sriram.
8. Ms.J.Kamalini, learned Counsel for petitioner in C.R.L. O.P. No. 11588 of 2026 / Accused No.5 – Rajesh submits that Accused No.5 merely watched the film out of curiosity and did not commit any other offence as alleged. Accused No.5 has been under incarceration since April 12, 2026. Considering the period of incarceration, further detention would not be necessary. He is permanently employed in the same renowned private company as Accused No.6 – Srinath @ Sriram. He is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to grant bail to Accused
No.5- Rajesh.
9. Opposing the above submissions, Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – police submits that
Accused Nos.1 and 2 pirated the film and watched it along with Accused
Nos.3 to 5. Further, Accused No.5 shared the pirated copy with Accused No.6 who in turn forwarded the same to Accused Nos.7 to 10. All the accused persons forwarded / uploaded the pirated version of the film across multiple online and social media platforms. Notably, Accused No.7 – Bala openly created a Drive link containing the pirated version of the film which was accessed by about 1,20,00,000 people.
9.1. Further, as regards Accused No.4 – Rajini, he submits that being an advocate is all the more reason not to watch a pirated version of a film, that too before its CBFC Certification and theatrical release. Apart from watching, Accused No.4 had aided the other accused persons in circulating the pirated version of the film knowing fully well that it is an offence.
9.2. He further submits that the accused persons have caused several hundred crores of loss to the production company. Investigation is not yet completed. Digital records of circulation, uploads, downloads, etc. are collected and currently pending before Forensic Science Laboratory for

analysis. The analysis is pending and the digital records have not been completely decoded. Further, requested details of online monetary transactions are yet to be received. Accused No.3 is currently absconding. The complete role of each and every accused persons would come to light only after arrest and investigation of Accused No.3. In these circumstances, if bail is granted to accused persons, they would erase the evidence and hamper the investigation. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently objects to grant of bail to the accused persons.
10. Mr.Vijayan Subramanian, learned Counsel for the intervenor emphasises on the huge amount of loss suffered by the intervenor – production company, and submits that the offence not merely involves a private dispute but a co-ordinated act of digital piracy affecting the entire film industry. This is not a partial or isolated leakage but the entire film has been unlawfully copied and disseminated. Consequently, the market value of the film is wiped out and not only the theatrical prospects are shattered but also the OTT, satellite and distribution rights are jeopardized. Further reiterating the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he vehemently opposes grant of bail to accused persons and seeks to dismiss the Criminal Original Petitions.
11. Considered the submissions on either sides. Perused the materials available on record including the Case Diary.
12. The Investigating Agency has collected mobile phone and other gadgets from the accused persons and sent the same for forensic analysis. The digital records which are essential to trace down the digital footprints, have not yet been decoded completely. The Investigating Agency has further sought for details regarding online monetary transactions from multiple giant online companies and platforms, which are yet to be received. Further, Accused No.3 – Uma Shankar is absconding. Material facts, particulars, fresh perspectives and circumstances could possibly emerge after receiving the aforesaid information or upon arrest and investigation of Accused No.3, which would necessitate the Investigation Agency to conduct further investigation on the accused persons based on the same, to unearth the truth and ascertain the role of each and every accused person. There is high possibility that if bail is granted to the petitioners / accused persons, they may erase the evidence and hinder the process of investigation. Further, the ramifications of the crime extends beyond the massive financial loss suffered by the production company; hard work and future of several people connected with the film is jeopardized. Hence, given the current stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners / accused persons. Therefore, all the captioned Criminal Original Petitions are hereby dismissed. Connected, Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (Intervening Petitions) are closed.
22.05.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
TK
To
1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Prison
Puzhal, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police CCD – I, CCW – SCCIC, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Madras.

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK

CRL OP NOS.11588, 12481, 12155 & 11573 OF 2026
AND
CRL.MP.NOS.8613, 8866, 8867 & 8618 OF 2026
22.05.2026