In a significant legal development on Friday, 6th February, the Karnataka High Court intervened to halt a controversial police investigation targeting a key player in India's defence sector. The court ordered a stay on all proceedings regarding a suo motu FIR filed by Inspector Sadiq Pasha of the Doddaballapur Rural police station against Newspace Research and Technologies Pvt Ltd.

The conflict arose after the Bengaluru-based company, which is a centrally regulated aerospace research firm, faced criminal charges. These charges were pressed by the local police after one of the company's research drones accidentally landed in a ‘Muslim-majority area’ located outside their designated green zone testing perimeter.

The incident, which took place on 29th January, was attributed to a technical battery malfunction. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the bench, heard the petition filed by the defence technology company. After reviewing the circumstances, the High Court issued an interim order that effectively freezes any further police probe until the next scheduled hearing.

Delivering the order, Justice Nagaprasanna stated: “There shall be an interim order of stay of all investigation pursuant to the registration of the crime till the next date of hearing.”

Technical Glitch Forces Drone into Residential Zone

To understand the trajectory of the case, one must look back at the events of 29th January 2026. On this day, New Space Research and Technologies Private Limited was engaged in its standard research and development (R&D) testing protocols within its leased premises. During these tests, a lightweight research drone experienced a critical battery malfunction.

Deprived of power, the drone glided away from the secure leased perimeter and eventually touched down in a residential locality identified as a ‘Muslim area’ in Doddaballapur, Bengaluru. The aftermath of the landing was complicated by technical limitations; the company officials were unable to immediately track the device because of a poor Global Positioning System (GPS) signal. Furthermore, as darkness had set in, the company could not launch an immediate physical search operation to retrieve the equipment.

The situation escalated when local residents contacted the authorities. Police personnel arrived at the scene after receiving an alert through the 112-emergency helpline and subsequently took the drone into their custody.

Officer Files Case, Detains Officials, and Withholds Documents

The police response to this technical mishap has raised serious questions regarding procedural conduct. After confiscating the equipment, Inspector Sadiq Pasha registered a suo motu FIR—meaning he filed the case on his own initiative rather than on a complaint from a citizen—against “unknown” persons. The charges invoked were severe: Section 125, which covers acts endangering life or personal safety of others, and Section 329(3), pertaining to criminal trespass, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

On 30th January, the police served a notice to the company. Compliance was swift; officials from New Space Research and Technologies Private Limited reported to the police station to clarify the situation. They explained that the drone's landing in the residential area was purely accidental, resulting from a malfunction rather than intent.

During this interaction, the company representatives highlighted their legal standing. They informed the investigating officers that their firm is a licensed drone research and training agency that operates directly under the control of the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). They further clarified that their testing activities are legally sanctioned under the Drone Rules, 2021, and other applicable laws. It is worth noting that Newspace Research and Technologies is a critical supplier of drones to the Indian armed forces and operates a testing centre on a sprawling 48-acre leased facility in Doddaballapur.

Despite these clarifications, allegations of harassment surfaced. Inspector Sadiq Pasha reportedly violated basic legal procedures by refusing to provide a copy of the FIR to the company officials. The police maintained that because the drone had landed on private property, it was viewed as a threat to physical safety.

Inspector Pasha, who reportedly holds a law degree and should be well-versed in legal rights, argued that only the "informant" (in this case, the police themselves) was entitled to the FIR copy. The standoff continued for hours. The officials were reportedly made to sit at the station for six hours. The FIR copy was eventually handed over only after the company’s legal counsel threatened to escalate the matter by filing a formal complaint with the Lokayukta, the anti-corruption ombudsman.

In court, the counsel for Newspace Research and Technologies provided technical specifics, noting that the drone weighed 6kg and was powered by a Chinese battery. Underscoring the company's credentials, the counsel pointed out that they supply equipment to the Indian Army and that the specific model of the drone in question had been showcased during the recent Republic Day parade. The court was also informed that the company has been conducting R&D trials at that specific site for the past four to five years without prior issue.

The legal argument presented was that the local police lacked jurisdiction. The counsel emphasized that since the operation was conducted in a green zone under a valid R&D license, any regulatory questioning should come from the DGCA under the Drone Rules, not local law enforcement.

Judge Demands Explanation for Officer’s Overzealous Conduct

The High Court took serious note of the specific allegations regarding Inspector Sadiq Pasha’s conduct. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the inspector displayed "excessive interest" in the case, persisting with the probe even after valid licenses and documents were presented.

It was brought to the court's attention that Inspector Pasha had demanded the personal appearance of the Managing Director of Newspace Research and Technologies. Furthermore, he allegedly sought disclosure of sensitive corporate information, including the number of employees, revenue, and turnover—details that appear to have no relevance to a drone battery malfunction investigation.

Responding to these grievances, the court ordered Inspector Sadiq Pasha to file an affidavit responding to the specific allegations made in the petition. The bench issued a stern warning, stating that failing to follow the direction will invite necessary action.

Justice Nagaprasanna directed that Pasha’s explanation must be submitted via the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Doddaballapur Rural police station by the next hearing date. Until that time, the court has halted all coercive actions against the petitioner, providing a necessary temporary reprieve to the Bengaluru-based defence company.