Logo

Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against ‘Drone Prathap’ Over Sodium-Water Experiment, Finds No Malicious Intent

Shivam Y.

Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against YouTuber Drone Prathap over sodium-water experiment, finding no established malicious intent under the Explosive Substances Act. - Pratap N M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against ‘Drone Prathap’ Over Sodium-Water Experiment, Finds No Malicious Intent
Join Telegram

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the FIR against science educator and YouTuber Pratap N M, popularly known as “Drone Prathap”, over a video showing an explosion caused by dropping sodium into water. Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the material before the Court did not establish the malicious intent required for prosecution under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

Background

The case arose from an experiment conducted at a private farm in December 2024. According to the petitioner, an artificial pond was prepared and around 100 grams of sodium was placed in approximately 1,000 litres of water to demonstrate the chemical reaction for educational purposes. The experiment was recorded and uploaded on his YouTube channel.

The Medigeshi Police registered the case under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Pratap later approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

The Court noted that it did not approve of the manner in which the experiment was conducted. However, it found no material indicating that the act was malicious or intended to endanger others.

The Court observed:

“Though this Court does not endorse the manner in which the petitioner has conducted the experiment, considering that there is no intention and no maliciousness as required under Section 3 which could be established on the basis of the complaint which has been filed…”

The Court also noted that the experiment had been openly recorded and uploaded for students to view and understand. It further held that sodium by itself was not an explosive substance for attracting the offence alleged under Section 3.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR against Pratap N M. The Court also cautioned him against undertaking similar activities in the future, stating that any such action would be viewed strictly.

Case Details:

Case Title: Pratap N M v. State of Karnataka

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 469 of 2025

Judge: Justice Suraj Govindaraj

Decision Date: 2026

Take CourtBook Everywhere

Access your account on the go with our mobile app.

Get it on Google PlayDownload on the App Store