'Unique Crime Against Inanimate Object': Karnataka High Court Stays Criminal Trespass FIR Against Drone

The Karnataka High Court in an interim order on Friday (February 6) stayed an FIR registered by the Police against a drone, booked for allegedly trespassing into a property in Doddaballapura, remarking that the case presented a unique crime registered against an inanimate object. 

After hearing the matter, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order dictated:

"The case projects a unique crime registered against an inanimate object. A drone is set to have trespassed into particular area. So offence of criminal trespass is alleged against a drone".

Appearing for the petitioner company M/s New Space Research and Technologies Private Limited, advocate Angad Kamath said that the company manufactures drones for Indian armed forces and has license for research and development for flying the drone into the green zone of Doddaballapura. It was stated that the battery of the drone had some malfunction when it was in air, after which it glided down into a neighbouring property. 

The petition averred that there was no complaint by any quarter whatsoever, but a police inspector is stated to have shown "interest more than necessary" in the drone and despite being shown the licenses for flying drone in the green zone, had made the officers of the company sit in the police station for over six hours. 

Later an FIR was registered against the company, without supplying a copy of the FIR or otherwise to the petitioner. Meanwhile the State in its submissions said that there was a rally happening by Hindu organisation and the area is dominated by Muslim people. Kamath however said that none of this was stated in the FIR, adding that the allegation was that somebody had gone and placed the drone in the property and therefore had committed trespass.

Kamath submitted that in terms of the Drone Rules 2021, the police have no jurisdiction whatsoever to question the usage of the drone; it is only the Director General of Civil Aviation which has jurisdiction to question.

"Therefore the police inspector, shall file an affidavit on the averments made in the petition failing which direction for appropriate action will be taken, as it is an admitted fact that no copy of FIR was served upon petitioner," the court directed. 

Kamath said that Section 173(2) BNSS states that informant is entitled to a copy of FIR free of cost, but that does not mean that when the accused requests for copy of the FIR it can be withheld by the police. To this the court orally said, "It should be uploaded on website...it should be accessible to everybody. Where is the question of keeping FIR as confidential document,"

After which the court directed, "There shall be interim order of stay of all investigation pursuant to registration of crime in CRIME NO. 24/2026 till the next date of hearing".

The matter is listed on February 13. 

Case title: M/S. NEW SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP 4258/2026