‘Only viewed film’: Madras High Court grants pre-arrest bail over ‘Jana Nayagan’ movie leak

Justice C Kumarappan was of the view that the man had cooperated with the investigation and was not a ‘flight risk’.

The man, along with others, allegedly illegally released the movie even before its official theatrical release by merging the leaked portions into a full-length film and uploading the same on websites such as ‘Tamilrockers’ and other online platforms. Among other offences, the man has been primarily charged with the offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust (unlawfully taking control over someone else’s property) and violation of copyright of the movie.

The high court observed that it had also granted bail to other accused from the same incident and that the final report had already been filed. It was further noted by the court that the man had also cooperated with the investigation.

The court also said that the man was initially not treated as an accused and had even assisted the investigation by standing as an attesting witness at the time of the arrest of another accused; the possibility of him trying to escape or tamper with witnesses was not acceptable. Therefore, the court, noting the fact that the incident took place on April 11 and July was going on, granted anticipatory bail to the man.

‘Merely viewed film’

Advocate CA Anburaja, appearing for the accused, submitted that the FIR was registered in connection with the illegal release of the film Jana Nayagan. The counsel submitted that the accused had been arrested at a later stage of investigation merely on the allegation that he had viewed the film and no evidence was given to prove it. The counsel also urged that primary allegations were against the editor of the movie, who had subsequently been relieved from the charges.

It was also contended by the counsel that the investigation had been completed and the final report had already been filed. According to the counsel, no such notice was issued to the man, and the police are attempting to arrest him. He has further submitted that one of the primary co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

Government advocate Arun Anbumani, representing the state, submitted that the man was one of the “kingpins” of the entire operation and had been sent to jail. It was also contended that the police had filed only a “preliminary” charge sheet and that, unless the man was arrested, it was not possible to recover the concerned digital gadgets.