Jana Nayagan Movie Leak: Freelance Editor Approaches Madras High Court Seeking Anticipatory Bail

Uma Shankar, a freelance editor, who worked in the making of Vijay starrer "Jana Nayagan" movie, has approached the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving illegal streaming of the movie.

When the case came up before Justice C Kumarappan, Advocate Vijayan Subramanian, appearing for the de facto complainant KVN Productions (producer of the movie) strongly objected to the grant of anticipatory bail. He argued that the petitioner was one of the prime accused in the case, who had copied the movie in a hard disk and was involved in its circulation, even before the movie was officially released.

Subramanian also informed the court that the police had already arrested eight persons in the case, in which two were the petitioner's brothers. Thus, he opposed the grant of bail and sought permission for filing an intervening petition. The court allowed the request, directing the production company to file an intervening petition and adjourned the case to April 30.

Uma Shankar has approached the court apprehending arrest by the police for alleged offences punishable under Section 61(2), 306, 316(2), 318(4) of the BNS and Section 43 of the IT Act along with Sections 66,66B, 66C, 66D of the IT (Amendment) Act and Sections 51,63(a), 65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 65A, 65B of the Copyright (Amendment) Act read with Section 6AB of the Cinematography Act. 

It may be noted that earlier this month, clips from the movie were circulated online, even before the film was certified by the CBFC for release to the general public. A complaint was filed by the production company, and 8 people have been arrested till now. The production company had also secured an interim order restraining internet service providers and other Cable TV operators from illegally streaming the movie. 

Seeking anticipatory bail, Shankar submitted that he had not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. It was submitted that he was a heart patient and had recently undergone heart surgery. He argued that he had neither watched the movie nor shared it with anyone. He alleged that the police was repeatedly harassing him and his entire family instead of taking action against the real culprits. 

Shankar also submitted that he was a law-abiding citizen and was willing to cooperate with the enquiry. He also submitted that he was ready to furnish sureties for his due release on anticipatory bail and was ready to abide by any conditions that the court may impose.

Advocate Rajadurai appeared for the petitioner. Government Advocate Vinothkumar appeared for the State, and Advocate Vijayan Subramanian appeared for the de facto complainant

Case Title: Uma Shankar v State

Case No: Crl OP 10019 of 2026