Heard Sri T v. Ramana Rao

films and firm piracy poses a significant threat to the Telugu film industry, causing irreparable losses and the online piracy has accounted for a revenue loss of Rs.3,700 crore to the Telugu Film Industry in the year 2024 alone. It is further stated that the Anti-Video Piracy Cell has intensified it is efforts by extensively using watermarking and forensic technologies to locate the origin of piracy or the source of the theft of master copies of new films. It is further stated that, as part of their efforts, they have identified two instances of 2 piracy involving the aforementioned films with compelling evidence and are bringing them attention for urgent remedial action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case vide FIR No.1042 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 66 C, and 66 E of IT Act, sections 111 (2) (b), 318 (4), 338 r/w 3 (5) of BNS, Sections 63 and 65 of Copy Rights Act and Sections 6AA and 6AB of Cinematographic Amendment Act, 2023.

3. According to the investigating officer, the allegations against this petitioner are that the petitioner has developed two E-commerce website in the name of mymagicdeals.in and lookmyoffers.com and these are the affiliate marketing apps and he has got commission of Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- from Amazon and Flipkart and due to revenue drops during the year 2019-2020, the petitioner was unable to run his E- commerce website and stopped the work and later, he focused to invest money in NSE (stock exchange). It is further stated that the petitioner uploaded the pirated version of Kubera Telugu movie in his 1tamilbalsters.net website and since 2020, he had uploaded approximately 500 pirated movies in 1tamilbalsters.net website. It is further stated that the petitioner received 2 crore rupees from the gaming/betting 3 websites organizers in cryptocurrency. It is further stated that three cases were registered against the petitioner for the similar circumstances.

4. Heard Sri T. V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he was under the police custody for three times, as such, three crimes were registered against the petitioner, the 1st crime is the present crime registered on 05.06.2025, the 2nd crime was registered on 11.02.2025 and the 3rd crime was registered on

18.07.2025, and he is in judicial custody from 25.07.2025 and 18 witnesses were already examined by the investigating officer. Even though he was arrested on 25.07.2025, his name was not shown in the present FIR with an intention to remain the petitioner in judicial custody. It is further submitted that false cases were registered against the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 4 TT Antony Vs. State of Kerala1. It is further submitted that there is no other investigation pending against the petitioner and the accused No.2 was already released on bail. It is further submitted that Section 111 (2) (b) of BNS is not applicable to the present case, as there is no other charge sheet pending against the petitioner and also Sections 318 (4), 338 r/w 3 (5) of BNS are not applicable to the present case and remaining all are below 7 years offences. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted that the online piracy has accounted for a revenue loss of Rs.3,700 crore to the Telugu Film Industry. Further, the investigation was not yet completed. At this stage, granting of bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 1 (2001) 6 SCC 181 5

7. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is in judicial custody since

25.07.2025 and as seen from the record, 18 witnesses were already examined and according to the petitioner, the other crimes were not registered for the same offences and further, there are no other cases pending against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad District. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of 6 investigation, and thereafter, as and when required. iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Date: 08.09.2025 TU _______________ K. SUJANA, J 7 47 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11178 of 2025 Date: 08.09.2025 TU