Mere Recovery Of Drone From Neighbouring Property Due To Mechanical Failure Not Criminal Trespass: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a criminal case against a drone research company based in Bengaluru over a test drone flying across the company's premises and entering a private property, thereby allegedly constituting the offence of criminal trespass. M/s NewSpace Research and Technologies Private Limited filed the petition for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 125 [Act endangering life or personal safety of others] and 329[Criminal Trespass] of BNS, 2023.Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that 'criminal jurisprudence… rests on the bedrock of mensrea'. No intentional human entry or ingredients of mens rea have been met in the current case, the court opined.“…The FIR does not attribute any such negligent human act to any individual nor does it identify any specific victim. Criminal jurisprudence, as it stands, continues to rest upon the bedrock of mens rea and criminal justice system cannot be invoked on the basis of speculative or mechanical attribution of the ingredients of the crime – rash and negligent human act to an inanimate object. Therefore, the Police cannot convert a mechanical event into an offence involving mens rea, by a bald assertion in the complaint”, the court explained in the order.“…the incident, at its highest, constitutes a case of negligible harm, squarely attracting the doctrine of triviality. There is no allegation of bodily injury, property damage or aggrieved complainant. Therefore, the case of the respondent complainant falters on yet another legal plank. The FIR is suo motu. The fulcrum is a drone trespassing into a neighbouring property…”, the court observed that Section 33 [acts causing slight harm] of the BNS,2023, founded upon the principle of de minimis non curat lex (the law doesn't concern itself with trifles) would apply in the current case.BackgroundAccording to the petitioner, NewSpace Research & Technologies is a company engaged in the research and development of unmanned aerial systems. It holds a valid authorisation from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and an industrial licence from the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. The company has been carrying out its operations at a 48-acre leased plot at Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, for testing drones for the last five years.In January 2025, a prototype drone weighing 7 kilograms experienced a mechanical failure during routine testing and flew beyond the leased premises. According to the plea, it inadvertently landed inside a neighbouring property. It couldn't be located immediately due to bad lighting and GPS signal loss. The company employees began their search for the missing drone on the following day.However, on the same day of the drone-missing incident, the police received information via helpline about the presence of a drone in the Palanayogahalli village. After inspection, the police retrieved the drone; they then registered a crime against unknown persons for trespassing into private property using a drone, essentially for endangering the safety of the land owner. A suo moto crime came to be registered accordingly.The company's team visited the police station upon knowing about the recovery, and claimed ownership of the drone. The officials explained that it was used for research and testing, which is exempt from certain permissions under Rule 42 of the Drone Rules, 2021. However, the police refused to hand over a copy of the FIR, which prompted the company to knock on the doors of the High Court, fearing legal action.Court's Further Observations“…complaint merely records the presence of the drone in the neighbouring property. Beyond this, there is nothing narrated in the complaint that could become the ingredients of Section 329(3) of the BNS…The sine qua non of the provision is the existence of mens rea. The FIR, however, is conspicuously devoid of any allegation of intentional human entry or any discernible ingredient of the statute. The recovery is of a drone. Mere recovery of a drone, without anything more, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, satisfy the ingredients of the offence. Therefore, Section 329 of the BNS is loosely laid against the petitioner.”, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted after perusing the FIR.The court added that even if the material in the FIR is construed as true, it fails to make out the essential ingredients of the offences in it, i.e., the offences under Sections 329[Criminal Trespass] and 125[Act endangering life or personal safety of others] of BNS, 2023. The court inferred the aforesaid from the apex court judgment in State Of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.The court also criticised the police officials' failure to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the FIR.“The law declared by the Apex Court unequivocally mandates that an accused is entitled to obtain a copy of the FIR without undue delay. Mere assertion that FIR is uploaded online cannot be a substitute for compliance with the obligation. The ...

Mere Recovery Of Drone From Neighbouring Property Due To Mechanical Failure Not Criminal Trespass: Karnataka High Court

Sebin James

Tags