Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Yugadev R – Petitioner
versus
State of Karnataka and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.981 of 2026
Decided on 25.3.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Syed Khaleel Pasha, Advocate
For the Respondents No.1: Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Police notice – Section 35(3) does not empower Police to communicate electronic copy or by WhatsApp notice or copy of FIR – It has to be mandatorily given physically.
(2) Arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory discretion which facilitates him to conduct proper investigation, in form of collection of evidence and shall not be termed as mandatory.
Headnote:
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 35 – Police notice – Arrest – Electronic communication of crime or any other communication is not what Legislature has thought of – Section 35(3) does not empower Police to communicate electronic copy or by WhatsApp notice or copy of FIR – It has to be mandatorily given physically – Arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory discretion which facilitates him to conduct proper investigation, in form of collection of evidence and shall not be termed as mandatory – Police officer shall ask himself question as to whether an arrest is a necessity or not, before undertaking said exercise – Crime may be of any kind, but they are offences punishable with 7 years or less of imprisonment – Resort to arrest at the outset is not power of Police – It is only to serve notice under Section 35(3) and direct accused to participate in investigation – At the time when accused would not cooperate with receiving notice or otherwise, accused would become open to arrest. (Paras 8, 10 and 11)
Result: Criminal Petition rejected.
ORDER (CAV)
M. Nagaprasanna, J.—The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question an order dated 19-01-2026 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and XXXIX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crime No.271 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the Act’ for short) and Section 318(4) of the BNS.
2. Heard Sri Syed Khaleel Pasha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
3.1. Three complainants come together and register a complaint against two persons – one, the petitioner/accused No.1 and the other, wife of the petitioner/accused No.2. Petitioner along with his wife introduced themselves as Yoga teachers and started running a Company by name Jai Bhairavi Devi (‘JBD’) Financial Solutions. The investments were solicited by opening a website. The respondents/complainants were the investors. The complainants are said to have invested a total sum of Rs.39,20,000/- on a bank transfer from their respective accounts. A total collection of Rs.98/- lakhs was transferred from the petitioner’s account to his wife’s account. Alleging foul play, a complaint comes to be registered on 03-12-2025 for criminal breach of trust, misappropriation and causing wrongful loss. Based on the said complaint, a crime in Crime No.271 of 2025 comes to be registered for the afore-quoted offences on 09-12-2025. All the offences were punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less.
3.2. The Police wanted to serve notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and began to search for accused No.1. Accused No.1 dodged the police for more than 40 days and finally the Police traced him in Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, and served the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Since the petitioner had refused to cooperate, he was taken into custody at 5.45 p.m. on 17-01-2026. An arrest intimation was issued to the relatives along with grounds of arrest. He was produced before the Magistrate on 17-01-2026 at 9.32 p.m. at his home office, where the Advocate for the accused challenged the arrest contending that it was illegal. On 19-01-2026 he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at Bengaluru and a remand application was filed. On 19-01-2026 the concerned Court passes an order of arrest. This is what is challenged in the case at hand.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the learned Magistrate has declined to accept plethora of submissions with regard to the illegal arrest of the petitioner. He would contend that the Police have failed to digitally or physically serve the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS on the petitioner; the Police have failed to observe the guidelines rendered by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [(2022) 10 SCC 51], in not serving notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS which is mandatory and its violation would be violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The Police have failed to serve grounds of arrest on the petitioner. In the event the petitioner has not cooperated, it is for the Police to draw a mahazar that he has refused to accept the notice, intimate to the higher authorities and then take him to custody. Even on merits, it does not disclose a dishonest intention at the inception. The matter is purely civil in nature. There is delay in lodging FIR. He would submit that his right of personal liberty under Article 21 is violated.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N.Jagadeesha appearing for respondent No.1 would vehemently refute the submission to contend that there is no violation of guidelines laid down in Satender Kumar Antil’s case. The Police tried to serve notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS on the petitioner several times. The Police made every effort since the da
