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.