From Test Flight To 'Trial' Run: Karnataka HC Pauses Unique Trespass Case Against Drone

Last Updated:February 06, 2026, 16:12 IST

The court questioned the legal basis of attributing criminal intent and trespass to a machine

The Karnataka High Court has stayed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against an inanimate object: a research drone. The court described the case as “unique", as the police had booked the device for allegedly committing criminal trespass after it landed on a private property in the Doddaballapura area near Bengaluru.

Presiding over the matter, Justice M Nagaprasanna questioned the legal basis of attributing criminal intent and trespass to a machine. The judge remarked that the case projected a singular legal issue where an offence typically requiring human volition was instead levelled against a drone.

Experts say that under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code on July 1, 2024, the legal definition of “criminal trespass" remains fundamentally tied to human intent, making the prosecution of a machine—such as a drone—a legal anomaly.

The FIR was registered suo motu by the Doddaballapura Rural Police under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically citing rash conduct and criminal trespass. The police alleged that the drone’s presence on private land endangered public safety and suggested that someone might have deliberately placed it there.

The petition to quash the FIR was filed by NewSpace Research and Technologies Private Limited, a Bengaluru-based firm that develops aerospace technology for the Indian Armed Forces. The company argued that the incident was a purely technical mishap rather than a criminal act.

The Incident: On January 29, during routine testing on its 19-acre leased premises, a lightweight six-kilogram drone suffered a battery malfunction.

The Landing: Due to the loss of power, the drone glided outside the boundary and landed smoothly on a neighbouring plot.

The Jurisdiction: The firm contended that since it was operating in a designated “Green Zone" under the Drone Rules, 2021, the local police lacked the statutory authority to investigate. It maintained that any regulatory oversight falls exclusively under the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).

During the hearing, the State justified the police action by pointing to the local context. Officials noted that a rally by a Hindu organisation was occurring nearby at the time, and the drone had landed in a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood, sparking security apprehensions.

However, the petitioner’s counsel countered that these details were entirely absent from the FIR, which made no mention of communal tension or a public complaint. The court took a grim view of the police conduct, particularly the failure to furnish a copy of the FIR to the company and the alleged six-hour detention of company officials. Justice Nagaprasanna has directed the concerned police inspector to file a detailed affidavit and has stayed all further investigation until the next hearing on February 13.

News india From Test Flight To 'Trial' Run: Karnataka HC Pauses Unique Trespass Case Against Drone

Read More