Introduction:

In an unusual and legally intriguing matter, the Karnataka High Court, while hearing M/s New Space Research and Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 4258 of 2026, was confronted with what it itself described as a “unique crime” — the registration of an FIR alleging criminal trespass not against a person, but against a drone, an inanimate object. The interim order was passed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna on 6 February 2026, staying further investigation in Crime No. 24 of 2026 registered at Doddaballapura. The petitioner company, a defence-linked drone manufacturing entity supplying unmanned aerial systems to the Indian armed forces, approached the Court challenging the legality, jurisdiction, and propriety of the police action. The FIR stemmed from an incident where a drone, allegedly due to battery malfunction, glided into a neighbouring private property while being lawfully flown in a designated green zone. The case raised fundamental questions about criminal liability, jurisdiction under the Drone Rules, 2021, police overreach, and transparency in criminal procedure. The High Court’s interim observations not only exposed the absurdity of attributing criminal intent to an inanimate object but also highlighted deeper concerns regarding misuse of police powers and procedural violations under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

The petitioner company, represented by Advocate Angad Kamath, contended that the entire criminal proceeding was vitiated by legal non-application of mind, lack of jurisdiction, and procedural impropriety. It was submitted that the petitioner is a reputed defence research and manufacturing company engaged in the development of drones for the Indian armed forces and holds all requisite licences and authorisations under the Drone Rules, 2021, including permission to fly drones within the green zone of Doddaballapura. The incident in question, according to the petitioner, was purely accidental in nature: while the drone was airborne, a battery malfunction occurred, causing it to glide down into a neighbouring property without any human intervention, intent, or control. The petitioner emphatically argued that criminal trespass under the Indian Penal Code presupposes mens rea, deliberate entry, and human agency — elements that are inherently absent when an unmanned aerial vehicle malfunctions and lands unintentionally. It was further contended that there was no complaint from the landowner or any affected individual, and the FIR appeared to have been registered solely on the initiative of a police inspector who, as alleged, showed “interest more than necessary” in the drone. Despite being shown valid licences and approvals, officers of the petitioner company were allegedly detained at the police station for over six hours without lawful justification. The petitioner also pointed out serious procedural violations, including the failure of the police to furnish a copy of the FIR despite repeated requests. Reliance was placed on Section 173(2) of the BNSS to argue that access to the FIR cannot be denied to the accused, and that FIRs are public documents meant to be accessible, including through online platforms. On jurisdiction, it was strongly urged that under the Drone Rules, 2021, regulatory oversight rests exclusively with the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and the local police have no authority to initiate criminal proceedings merely on the basis of drone usage, unless a clearly cognizable offence by a human actor is disclosed. The petitioner submitted that the FIR was an abuse of the criminal process, lacked factual foundation, and if allowed to proceed, would set a dangerous precedent of criminalising technological malfunction.

Arguments on Behalf of the State:

The State of Karnataka, opposing the petition, attempted to justify the police action by referring to surrounding circumstances and perceived sensitivities in the area. It was submitted that at the relevant time, a rally organised by a Hindu organisation was taking place and that the area into which the drone descended was dominated by Muslim residents, thereby raising concerns of public order and security. The State sought to argue that the presence of a drone in such a sensitive environment warranted immediate police intervention and investigation. However, when confronted with the contents of the FIR, it became apparent that none of these factors were recorded therein. The FIR merely alleged that a drone had trespassed into private property, without attributing any communal or security-related motive. The State did not dispute that the drone belonged to the petitioner company or that it was being flown pursuant to a licence, but sought to maintain that the police were acting in the interest of public safety. On the issue of furnishing the FIR, the State attempted to rely on Section 173(2) BNSS to suggest that only the informant is entitled to a free copy, though it stopped short of justifying the complete non-disclosure of the FIR to the accused. The State also did not controvert the petitioner’s submission that no private complaint had been lodged by the landowner. Overall, the State’s defence appeared tentative and failed to satisfactorily address the core issues of jurisdiction, absence of mens rea, and procedural irregularities.

Court’s Judgment:

The Karnataka High Court, while passing an interim order, made sharp and telling observations that exposed the fragility of the prosecution’s case. Justice M. Nagaprasanna categorically noted that the matter projected a “unique crime registered against an inanimate object,” remarking that the offence of criminal trespass had been alleged not against any person, but against a drone. The Court underscored the conceptual absurdity of imputing criminal liability to an object incapable of intention or conscious action. The Judge further expressed concern over the conduct of the police, particularly the failure to furnish a copy of the FIR to the petitioner, despite such disclosure being a basic procedural safeguard. The Court orally observed that FIRs ought to be uploaded on the website and made accessible, questioning how an FIR could be treated as a confidential document in the first place. Taking serious note of the petitioner’s allegations regarding police overreach, the Court directed the concerned police inspector to file an affidavit responding to the averments made in the writ petition, warning that failure to do so would invite appropriate action. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court appeared prima facie persuaded by the argument that regulation of drones falls within the domain of the DGCA under the Drone Rules, 2021, and that indiscriminate police action without statutory backing could not be sustained. Considering the peculiar facts, the absence of a complainant, the lack of clarity in the FIR, and the apparent legal infirmities, the Court passed an interim order staying all further investigation pursuant to the registration of Crime No. 24 of 2026 until the next date of hearing. The matter was directed to be listed on 13 February 2026, with the Court signalling close scrutiny of both the legality of the FIR and the conduct of the police authorities.