© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
Premium
Karnataka HC stays probe in criminal case against firm after research drone lands in residential area
The counsel for the aerospace firm argued before the Karnataka High Court that it manufactures drones for the Indian Armed Forces and has a licence for Research and Development to fly drones in the green zone.
The Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture (MCCIA) is setting up an integrated Drone Technologies Common Facility Centre (CFC) in Pune to support micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs).
The Karnataka High Court Friday stayed all further investigation in a criminal trespass case registered by the police against a centrally regulated aerospace and defence research company, after a lightweight research ‘drone’ of the company on suffering a battery malfunction, glided beyond the Green Zone area and landed in a neighbouring residential area.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “There shall be an interim order of stay of all investigation pursuant to the registration of the crime till the next date of hearing.”
On January 29, during routine research and development testing carried out within the leased premises, a lightweight research drone belonging to the company—M/s New Space Research And Technologies Private Limited suffered a battery malfunction and glided beyond the boundary of the leased land in the Doddaballapura area of Bengaluru.
The company, owing to poor lighting conditions and lack of a Global Positioning System (GPS) signal, could not immediately locate the drone. However, on the same evening, the police visited the area and took the drone into possession.
Subsequently, the police filed a suo motu First Information Report (FIR) against “unknown persons”, alleging that a drone had been placed on private land and that its presence was perceived to be endangering life and physical safety. The police invoked sections 125 (act endangering life or personal safety of others) and 329(3) (criminal trespass and house-trespass) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS).
The petition has sought to quash the FIR contending that the invocation of the BNS sections is ex-facie misconceived. Even if the FIR allegations are accepted at their highest, no offence is made out, it says.
On going through the records, the bench observed, “This is very very interesting… The drone is said to have trespassed.”
Story continues below this ad
Advocate Angad Kamath, appearing for the company, argued that the company manufactures drones for the Indian Armed Forces and has a licence for Research and Development to fly the drones in the green zone.
Rules 42 of the Drone Rules, 2021, expressly authorises recognised research and development entities to operate drones for research, development and testing purposes within a green zone and within premises or open areas under their control, without the requirement of licences, permissions or approvals.
Further, Kamath argued that in terms of the Drone Rules, the police have no jurisdiction whatsoever with regards to usage of the drone and it is only the Director General of the Civil Aviation (DGCA) which has jurisdiction to question the company.
He pointed out that a police officer named Sadiq Pasha had made the officials of the company sit in the police station for six hours and they were not provided with an FIR copy.
Story continues below this ad
The court directed the officer to respond to the averments made in the petition by filing an affidavit.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
Live Blog