Justice Victoria Gowri today. When the court was informed that an anticipatory bail plea in connection with the same case was dismissed by the regular court, the court initially decided to post

[08/05, 07:16] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-jana-nayagan-leak-accused-seek-bail-533317
[08/05, 07:16] sekarreporter1: Six persons accused in connection with the online leak of the upcoming Tamil movie “Jana Nayagan” have approached the Madras High Court seeking bail. It may be noted that on April 30, the Principal District and Sessions Court in Chennai had rejected bail to the accused persons.

The petitions came up for hearing before Justice Victoria Gowri today. When the court was informed that an anticipatory bail plea in connection with the same case was dismissed by the regular court, the court initially decided to post all the bail pleas before the same judge for consideration. However, upon the insistence by the counsels for the petitioners, the court decided to post the plea next week.

Jana Nayagan, which was caught up in a legal battle before the High Court, is still pending certification before the Central Board of Film Certification. While so, the unedited version of the movie started circulating online in early April this year. This led to the registration of an FIR based on a complaint by KVN Productions.

As per the prosecution’s case, the petitioners, who were freelance editors working with Mr Pradeep, the editor of the movie, had illegally stolen the digital files of the movie from a hard disk kept at the studio and shared the same with their friend, Uma Shankar, who had then circulated the said movie to several persons and ultimately leaked it on social media.

The trial court had dismissed the bail petitions, noting the serious nature of the allegations and the stage of the investigation. The court remarked that a deep and thorough investigation was required in the case to unearth the entire network of conspiracy.

The petitioners argued that they were not responsible for stealing the movie or releasing the movie online, but had only received a Google Drive link in which the movie was allegedly copied.

Opposing the bail, Advocate Vijayan Subramaniam, appearing for the production company argued that the leaked scenes of the movie contained the watermark of the editor, which would show that the movie was leaked from the editor’s room.

The production company submitted that it had suffered a loss of around Rs. 500 crores because of the leak. It was submitted that not just the producers, but the artists and other persons who had worked in the movie had also suffered because of the leak since all their efforts went in vain. It was also submitted that various contracts entered by the production company in connection with the rights of the movie were also affected.

After hearing the parties, the court adjourned the case to next week.

Case Title: Rajesh v The State

Case No: Crl OP 11588 of 2026