Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the case is unique and raises an important legal issue since the crime has been attributed to an inanimate object.
The interim order was passed while hearing a petition filed by NewSpace , a Bengaluru-based aerospace and defence research company that manufactures drones for the Indian armed forces.
According to the plea, the company holds licences from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for research and development operations.
Appearing for the company, advocate Angad Kamath submitted that NewSpace operates from a leased premises of around 19 acres in Doddaballapura, which falls within a “Green Zone” under the Drone Rules, 2021, and has been used for research and development testing for over four to five years.
He told the Court that on January 29, during routine testing, a lightweight thermocol research drone weighing about six kilograms suffered a battery malfunction. As a result, the drone glided beyond the boundary of the leased premises and landed smoothly on a neighbouring property.
Kamath said that there was no complaint from any landowner or member of the public, or any allegation of injury, damage or danger to life. There was also no human entry onto any private property.
Despite this, the police registered an FIR suo motu, alleging criminal trespass on the premise that “someone had gone and placed the drone” on private land.
Kamath argued that if someone had actually entered private property to place the drone, the incident would have raised a genuine security concern – something that did not arise in this case.
He further submitted that under Rule 42 of the Drone Rules, 2021, research and development operations conducted in a green zone and within leased premises fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the DGCA.
“Once I am operating under an R&D licence in a green zone and within my own premises, no authority other than the DGCA has jurisdiction to question the operation,” he argued.
Kamath also alleged coercive conduct by the police inspector.
According to Kamath, company officials who went to the police station with licences and authorisations were made to sit there for over six hours. Despite repeated requests, the inspector allegedly refused to furnish a copy of the FIR and insisted that notices would be issued only if the Managing Director personally appeared.
It was further alleged that the inspector questioned the company officials about the firm’s turnover, size and number of employees despite these being wholly unrelated to the alleged offence.
Kamath contended that it was only after the intervention of the State Public Prosecutor that a copy of the FIR was eventually furnished.
During the hearing, the State sought to justify the police action by referring to the local context in which the drone was recovered.
The State pointed out that a rally by a Hindu organisation was taking place in the area at the relevant time and that the locality where the drone landed was predominantly inhabited by members of the Muslim community.
According to the State, the recovery of a drone in such circumstances had triggered apprehensions, prompting the police to act.
However, the petitioner countered this submission by pointing out that none of these facts find any mention in the FIR and that the FIR itself does not record any communal angle, threat perception or public complaint.
After hearing the rival submissions, the Court noted that the case raised an unusual legal issue.
The Court also recorded the submission that the petitioner is a company supplying drones to the Indian Armed Forces and holds valid licences to conduct research and development operations in the area concerned.
The Bench took note of the admitted position that no copy of the FIR had initially been furnished to the petitioner and that FIRs ought to be uploaded online, particularly when the offences alleged are bailable.