Jana Nayagan Movie Leak: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused Freelance Editor

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea after noting the submissions of the State informing the court that there were materials against the accused and a custodial interrogation was necessary. The anticipatory bail plea was also opposed by KVN Productions, producers of the movie and the de facto complainant.

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.

Nine persons were arrested in connection with the case, and Uma Shankar was named by one of the prime accused.

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.

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.

Opposing the bail plea, the production company argued that the movie, which was circulated online even before its release contained the watermark of the editor. The company submitted that the petitioner was friends with persons who were working as freelance editors in the movie. It was submitted that he had copied the movie in a hard disk, compressed the file size and then forwarded the movie to others, ultimately posting it online.

The Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that based on the complaint by the production company, enquiry was conducted. It was submitted that after the shooting for the movie is over, it sent to the editing studio for editing. The prosecution informed the court that the prime accused in the case, Prasanth, was a freelance editor who was working on a different movie at that point of time.

The prosecutor informed the court that when this primary accused came to the editing studio, he saw the copy of movie clips in the system. He then copied these clips into a hard disk, took it to his home, merged it and ultimately enabled its online circulation.

With respect to the role of the petitioner, the prosecutor informed the court that the petitioner was working as a manager in a textile store, where the brothers of the prime accused were also working. It was submitted that the petitioner, and other co-accused had together planned to copy the movie and sell it to third parties. The prosecutor also informed the court that the call records were available which would show that all the accused had group calls, suggesting that there was planning. The prosecution thus informed the court that prima facie, the petitioner had a role in the case and his interrogation was necessary.

The prosecution also informed that through this act, the petitioner and others had not only affected the commercial aspects of the movie, but have also affected the lives of hundreds of people who worked in the movie. He added that through such acts, it is not just the producer who suffers but the entire industry.

“It's not just about the commercial of producer. So many people are affected. 500 artists involved. All persons who have worked for 145 days. Each day 500-1000 people worked. Not just the producer, entire industry suffers,” the additional prosecutor said.

After hearing the submissions, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea after noting that a custodial interrogation was necessary in the case.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Paul Kanagaraj

Counsel for Respondent: KMD Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr Vijayan Subramaniam (for intervenor)

Case Title: Uma Shankar v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 194

Case No: Crl OP 10019 of 2026