Chennai Court Recalls Non-Bailable Warrant Against IdeaForge Executive

The Metropolitan Magistrates Court of Siadapet in Chennai on Thursday recalled the non-bailable warrant issued against the CFO of Ideaforge Technology and also accepted the copies of sureties furnished by other executives of the company.

"A1 to A5 present. A4 surrender and warrant recall petition filed and allowed. NBW recalled. A2 to A5 furnished sureties and executed bond. Copies furnished," the court order from April 4 read. The next date of hearing has been set for April 24.

In a previous hearing on March 4, the court had asked the company and its higher executives of the company to execute a bond for a sum of Rs 25,000 with two sureties for the like sum. The parties had been given till April 1 to comply with the court's direction.

However, on the next date, the court found that while Vipul Joshi, the CFO of the company was absent from the hearing, only one surety was accepted from those submitted by other higher executives. Meanwhile, the sureties for the company were furnished.

This prompted the court to issue a non-bailable warrant against the CFO and the other executives were given one last chance to submit proper sureties by April 4. However, on the said date, all parties were present and had complied with the court's directions and hence the non-bailable warrant was recalled.

As per the court website, the sections involved in the case provide for criminal breach of trust by people in positions of authority, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, tampering with computer source documents, computer-related offenses, and damage to computer systems.

IdeaForge Technology Ltd. is an Indian unmanned ariel vehicle manufacturing company established in 2007. As per the information available from the company website, it ranked third in December 2024 in the global dual category (civil and defence) in drone manufacturing by Drone Industry Insights.

Clarifying on the case, the company has circulated an official statement saying that, "this case originates from an incident where one of our customers attempted to appropriate our intellectual property as their own and made false representations to state governments by defacing and tampering with our equipment."

When they were prevented from doing so, they initiated misconceived actions intended to harass the company, the statement further read.