Chennai Sessions Court Denies Bail to Nine Accused in ‘Jana Nayagan’ Movie Leak Case

April 30, 2026 : The Principal Sessions Court in Chennai has dismissed the bail applications of nine accused persons allegedly involved in the online leak of the unreleased Tamil film Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay.

In a detailed order dated April 30, 2026, Principal Sessions Judge S. Karthikeyan rejected the bail pleas filed by Srinath @ Sriram, Sanjay, Bala @ Balakrishnan, Manigandan, Ruthran, Rajesh, Prasanth, Selvam, and Rajini in connection with Cyber Crime Wing (CCW) Crime No. 47/2026.

The court noted that the case involves serious allegations of unauthorised access, copying, and circulation of a yet-to-be-certified film. It observed that the investigation remains at a nascent stage and requires a “deep and thorough probe” to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy.

According to the prosecution, the complaint was filed by the production team of the film, which alleged that digital files of Jana Nayagan were illegally extracted from a studio hard disk by individuals associated with the film’s editing team. These files were subsequently circulated through a network of associates and eventually leaked across multiple online platforms.

The investigation revealed that one of the accused had uploaded the film to Google Drive under a link titled “Janayaan Film Video,” which was then widely shared. Authorities further stated that several accused persons actively disseminated the unauthorised, watermarked version of the film via platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram, Telegram, YouTube, and Facebook, causing significant financial damage to the production house.

The prosecution emphasised that the leak jeopardised the film’s theatrical revenue, satellite rights, OTT deals, and overseas distribution value, leading to substantial monetary losses.

Opposing the bail pleas, the prosecution argued that the accused were not merely passive recipients of the leaked content but were actively involved in its distribution, allegedly with the intention of earning profits through online viewership and circulation.

The defence, however, contended that the accused were only recipients of a Google Drive link and had no role in the initial theft or public dissemination of the film.

Rejecting this argument, the court held that prima facie material indicated active involvement of the accused in circulating the film. It further stressed that custodial interrogation and continued investigation were necessary to trace the larger network behind the leak.

“Considering the serious allegations and the current stage of investigation, this court is not inclined to grant bail,” the court stated while dismissing all petitions.

It is pertinent to note that the anticipatory bail plea of co-accused Uma Shankar had earlier been dismissed by the Madras High Court.

The case has been registered under multiple provisions, including offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Information Technology Act, the Copyright Act, and the Cinematograph Act.

Case Reference : Srinath @ Sriram v. State (Crl.M.P.Nos.3737, 3759, 3776, 3915/2026)