FIR Stay in Tech-Law Clash: Karnataka HC to Examine Police Jurisdiction Over R&D Drone Testing
Karnataka HC Orders Interim Stay on Case After Research Drone’s Glitch Sparks Trespass FIR
The Karnataka High Court on 06.02.2026 stayed further investigation and proceedings in a criminal trespass case registered against a Bengaluru based aerospace and defence research company after one of its lightweight research drones, during a routine test flight, malfunctioned and glided beyond the boundaries of its leased Green Zone premises to land in a neighbouring residential area.
The court observed that the allegation of criminal trespass against an inanimate object like a drone raised a novel legal issue, and restrained all coercive action against the firm until the next hearing.
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna granted the interim stay on investigation in Crime No. 24/2026, while hearing the petition filed by the company NewSpace Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through its counsel, Advocate Angad Kamath.
The order effectively halts any further investigatory steps by the Doddaballapura Rural Police in a matter where the First Information Report (FIR) had been registered suo-motu on alleged criminal trespass by a drone without any complaint from a third party.
According to the petition, the company, which holds licences from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to operate drones for research and development purposes in a designated Green Zone, was conducting routine testing on 29.01.2026 within its leased 19-acre facility in Doddaballapura, Bengaluru.
During one such flight, a lightweight drone weighing approximately six kilograms suffered a battery malfunction and landed on a neighbouring property.
The petitioners maintained there was no allegation of injury, danger to life, or complaint from any landowner, and that the drone’s movement beyond the boundary was purely incidental to the malfunction.
Advocate Kamath told the court that under Rule 42 of the Drone Rules, 2021, recognised research and development entities are expressly authorised to operate drones within Green Zones and within premises or open areas under their control without requiring additional licences, permissions, or approvals. He argued that, by law, only the DGCA has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and question R&D drone operations conducted under valid licences, and that the police registration of a criminal case against the firm was unsustainable.
The firm’s counsel also contended that it had been engaged in regular testing for four to five years, supplying drones to the Indian Armed Forces, and that the drone in question, showcased at events like the Republic Day parade was part of ongoing development work.
Adv. Kamath further highlighted procedural lapses, including the police’s initial refusal to provide a copy of the FIR to the company’s representatives, despite statutory obligations to upload FIRs and make them accessible to the accused.
The court observed that the case presented a unique legal challenge because the crime was allegedly committed by an inanimate object, the drone, raising important questions about the applicability of the criminal trespass provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The court further directed the police to file an affidavit addressing the allegations and noted that police are duty bound to upload every FIR and ensure its accessibility to the accused. The court’s interim order stayed all investigation until the next date of hearing, listed on 13.02.2026.
In granting the stay, the court appeared cautious about allowing police action to proceed in a case where statutory licences and specialised regulatory regimes, such as the Drone Rules, 2021 govern the conduct being questioned.
The matter underscores the intersection of aviation technology regulations and criminal law, especially where emerging technologies like drones operate within nuanced legislative frameworks.
The interim order does not quash the FIR but restrains further investigation, signalling the court’s intent to examine whether police have jurisdiction in such cases and if proper procedures were followed in registering the case.
Case Title: NewSpace Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Date of Order: 6.02.2026