Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Illegally Watching CM Vijay's 'Jana Nayagan' Movie Online Before Release

Justice C Kumarappan noted that the only allegation against the man was that he had watched the movie illegally and no overt act had been attributed against him. The court also noted that the final report had already been filed in the case and other co-accused had already been granted bail, though the same had been challenged. The court was thus inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

“Further, the occurrence is stated to have taken place on 11.04.2026 and we are now in the month of July 2026. The initial allegation against the petitioner is only that he had viewed the illegally released movie, and except the same, no serious overt act has been attributed to him. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions,” the court said.

It may be noted that Jana Nayagan, which is said to be the last movie of CM Vijay before he entered politics, was initially caught up in a legal battle before the Madras High Court, when the Central Board of Film Certification refused certification for the film. Though the court had ordered the Board to certify the movie, this order was subsequently set aside. Later, the producers of the movie, KVN Productions, had withdrawn the challenge before the Court.

While the movie was released theatrically on July 23, an unedited editor's version of the movie was circulated online in April this year. As per the prosecution, a freelance editor, who was engaged by the editors of the movie, had copied it and facilitated its circulation. The court had already dismissed the bail petitions filed by some of the prime accused. 

In the present case, the petitioner argued that he was added as an accused in the case on the mere allegation that he had viewed the film, without any material to substantiate the same. He also argued that he was arrayed as an accused at a later stage in the investigation. He also submitted that when the police was arresting the 10^th accused in the case, he was an attesting witness to the arrest which would show that he was not treated as an accused in the initial investigation.

The petitioner also submitted that the final report had been filed in the case and custodial interrogation was not necessary anymore. He also contended that the police had not followed due procedure at the time of arrest, as no notice was issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS before effecting the arrest.

The State objected to the arrest and submitted that the prosecution had only filed a preliminary chargesheet, and unless the petitioner was taken into custody, it would not be possible to trace and recover the digital gadgets.

The court noted that some of the co-accused in the case had already been granted bail and the final report had also been submitted before the jurisdictional court. The court added that though the offence was undoubtedly serious, the question that had to be considered was whether a custodial interrogation was necessary.

Noting that the petitioner had initially not been treated as an accused and had even assisted the investigation, the court said that there was no likelihood of abscondence or tampering with the witnesses. Thus, the court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Thus, the court ordered him to be released in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of 15 days. The court added that if the petitioner did not surrender before the Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of the order, the order would stand automatically cancelled.

The court also directed the petitioner to appear before the police daily for 15 days and later, as and when required.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. C. A. Anburaja

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Arun Anbumani, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: R. Pradeep Kumar v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 339

Case No: Crl OP No 18167 of 2026