Palanisamy v. State Rep. ByThe Inspector of Police
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
CRL OP No. 13374 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANCRL OP No. 13374 of 2026 Palanisamy..PetitionerVsState Rep. ByThe Inspector of Police, Karumathampatti Police station, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.145 of 2026)..RespondentPRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.145 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.A.TamilarasanFor Respondent: Mr.N.PalanivelGovernment Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDERThe petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 51, 63A, 65A of Copyright Act, 1957, 43, 66B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and 6AA of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, 3 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and 8A, 15(3) of Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders and Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1984 in Crime No.
145 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 13374 of 2026__________Page2 of 42. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who runs a local television channel under the name "Rasi Prime Movie", downloaded the unreleased movie "Jananayagan" from an unauthorized source and telecast the same through his channel without permission. Hence, the case was registered.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 12.04.2026 and the allegation against him is that he downloaded and telecast an unreleased movie. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that in respect of the very same offence, this Court has already dismissed the earlier bail application and therefore, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
Operative part
5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel on either side, considering the serious allegation that the petitioner downloaded and telecast an unreleased movie and further considering the earlier dismissal of bail, this Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 13374 of 2026__________Page3 of 4is of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of jeopardizing the prosecution case.7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 01-06-2026NSLNote:
Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
All 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. To1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore District.2. The Inspector of Police, Karumathampatti Police station, Coimbatore District.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 13374 of 2026__________Page4 of 4C.KUMARAPPAN, J.NSLCRL OP No. 13374 of 202601-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483; Copyright Act, 1957 — ss. 51, 63A, 65A; Information Technology Act, 2000; AA of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.