Balaji Velkumar v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

03.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 306, 316(2), 318(4) r/w 61(2) BNS, 2023 and under Section 43, 66, 66B, 66C r/w 84B of I.T Act and under Section 51, 63(a), 65, 65A, 65B of Copyright Act and under Section 6AB read with Section 7(1A) of Cinematograph Act, in Crime No.47 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 6

2.The case of the prosecution is that R. Udayakumar, Production Controller of KVN Productions LLP, lodged a complaint alleging that confidential and unreleased footage of the feature film 'Jananayagan' was unlawfully accessed, copied, and circulated through various digital and social media platforms, causing substantial financial loss to the producer. It is further alleged that the accused persons conspired to leak the confidential footage for unlawful gain. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 03.06.2026 and has no criminal antecedents. He also submitted that a co-accused has already been granted bail. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed the bail application and contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a possibility of his again circulating the video footage which is in his possession. Page3 of 6

5.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner, without prejudice to his defence, submitted that the petitioner is willing to file an undertaking not to circulate the video footage.

¶6I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7.Considering the fact that the petitioner has been incarcerated since

03.06.2026, has no criminal antecedents, and a co-accused has already been granted bail, this Court is of the considered view that the further custodial interrogation or incarceration of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Page4 of 6 Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; [c] The petitioner shall file an undertaking not to circulate the video footage, without prejudice to his defence. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 27-07-2026 GBI Page5 of 6 Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai

2.The State represented by the Inspector of Police State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre, Cyber Crime Wing Hqrs, Chennai.

3.The Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o19951oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. GBI CRLoOPoNo.o19951oofo2026 27-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Balaji Velkumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by the Inspector of Police State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre, Cyber Crime Wing Hqrs, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 483 of BNSS to Enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.47 of 2026 on the file of respondent police For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Cyril Vivekandanan For Respondent(s): MR.S.YOGARAJA SEKAR, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE )