Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against YouTuber 'Drone Prathap' over pond explosion experiment video

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case filed against a YouTuber, Prathap NM, popularly known as 'Drone Prathap', who was booked for causing an explosion in an artificial pond using 100 grams of sodium as part of a science experiment [Pratap NM v State of Karnataka].

Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the experiment formed a part of the 10th standard NCERT syllabus and the YouTuber appeared to have made his video for educational purposes.

The judge added that since Prathap had not demonstrated any malicious intent, there was no need to prosecute him for criminal offences, including offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

"This Court does not condone or commend the acts taken by the petitioner. (However) the fact remains it is not a malicious action but only an educative action on part of the petitioner which would not require such educator to go through the ignominy of an investigation and a criminal trial thereafter," the Court said.

Prathap had been booked in the case after he dropped 100 grams of sodium into an artificial pond to create an explosion as part of a science experiment.

A video he uploaded on YouTube of the experiment went viral on social media, leading to his arrest in December 2024. He was booked for the offence of causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and negligent conduct with respect to explosive substances under Section 288 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He was later granted bail. He also deleted the controversial video.

He eventually moved the High Court with a plea to quash the first information report (FIR) filed against him.

His counsel told the Court that the experiment was conducted on an artificial pond created at his friend's private farm, and that all safety precautions were taken.

The Court factored in that the YouTuber was an educator and content creator who had built 600 drones from electronic waste. The Court further observed that Pratap had used his video to demonstrate a chemical reaction for educational purposes.

The Court further noted that the YouTuber had made no attempt to suppress evidence of the explosion and had uploaded the video for public viewing.

It concluded that there was no malicious or criminal intent on Pratap's part to warrant the continuation of criminal proceedings against him.

"Though this Court does not endorse the manner in which the petitioner has conducted the experiment, there is no maliciousness as required under Section 3 which could be established," it observed.

Therefore, the Court quashed the case against Prathap. However, it also cautioned that any similar incidents involving the YouTuber in future would be viewed more strictly.

Advocate Shweta Chidanand Hattarki represented Prathap.