Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against YouTuber Drone Prathap Over 'Pond Explosion' Experiment, Says No 'Malicious Intent'

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a science educator and YouTuber, Pratap N M, who runs the channel 'Drone Prathap', over a video demonstrating the reaction of sodium with water. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj opined that though it does not endorse the manner in which the experiment was conducted, the act was 'educative' and not 'malicious'.

“….As indicated above, though this Court does not condone or commend the actions taken by the petitioner, the fact remains that it is not a malicious action but only an educative action on the part of the petitioner, which should not require such an educator to go through the ordeal of a criminal investigation thereafter….”, the court noted in the order.

The Court, after hearing the parties, observed that Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act requires an unlawful and malicious act. It found no maliciousness in the petitioner's action.

“….Though this Court does not endorse the manner in which the petitioner has conducted the experiment, considering that there is no intention and no maliciousness as required under Section 3 which could be established on the basis of the complaint which has been filed, the experiment having been conducted in the farm of the petitioner's friend with a separate pond which had been built, and which was recorded and uploaded on the YouTube channel… the petitioner had not sought to suppress the explosion or suppress the actions taken by the petitioner, but had voluntarily put up the same for the students to view and understand…”, the court said in the order.

The Court also held that Section 288 BNS was not attracted, as sodium is not an explosive by itself. It further noted that none of the ingredients of the offences were satisfied on acceptance of the prosecution's complaint.

“…A perusal of Section 3 would indicate that any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall… be punished… None of these special categories of substances are concerned in the present matter… Sodium by itself is not an explosive substance…”, the court noted further in the order.

Noting the above, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR. It, however, issued an oral warning to the petitioner:

“…. Tell your client not to be doing things that may get him into trouble. It is made clear that if any further such action is taken by the petitioner, the same would be viewed strictly.”

On the petitioner's plea for return of seized articles, including his iPhone, camera and iPad, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional magistrate Court for return of the seized material.

The petitioner, before the High Court, submitted that he is a science educator and online content creator who conducted a 'controlled chemical experiment' to demonstrate the reaction of sodium with water for 10th standard NCERT students.

The experiment was conducted in December 2024 at a private farm owned by his friend, away from residential or public areas, pointed out the petitioner. An artificial pond measuring approximately 10 x10 feet was created and filled with about 1,000 litres of water, the plea further said. According to the petitioner, 100 grams of sodium was dropped into the artificial pond to create the explosion.

The video was uploaded on his YouTube channel and made available to students, the petitioner's counsel said further. The petitioner also told the court that sodium by itself is not an explosive substance. The experiment merely demonstrated the textbook reaction wherein sodium and water combine to release certain other chemicals and heat energy, it was added.

Hence, it was pleaded by the YouTuber that there was no maliciousness or negligence in his impugned act and that all required precautions were taken. It was also submitted that the petitioner has built more than 600 drones from electronic waste and is engaged in spreading scientific knowledge.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner dropped sodium into a pond, causing an explosion that could have endangered the lives of people around. The state further submitted that the fact of an explosion was not in dispute and that the petitioner, having used sodium knowing it could explode, should face investigation.

The crime in question against the YouTuber was registered by Medigeshi Police Station in Madhugiri, under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, r/w Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Advocate Shweta Chidanand Hattarki appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: Pratap N M v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 469/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382