Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10557

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Yugadev R. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.981 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Syed Khaleel Pasha
For the Respondents: K.Nageshwarappa

For offences punishable with up to seven years, issuing a notice to appear is mandatory before arrest. Service of such notice under the BNSS must be physical; electronic communication is not permitted. Arrest is an exception, justified only when the accused fails to comply or cooperate with the investigation.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 35 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66C and 66D - BNS Act - Section 318(4) - Arrest procedure - Obligation to serve notice - Rule of physical service - Electronic communication not permissible for Section 35 notice - Arrest as an exception - Necessity of recording reasons - Non-compliance with notice as grounds for arrest - Personal liberty versus investigative necessity. (Paras 8, 10)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Arrest - Validity of arrest - Whether power of arrest is mandatory - Held, arrest is a matter of discretion and the last resort for investigation - Issuance of notice to appear is the rule for offences punishable with up to seven years - Arrest justifiable only when there is non-compliance with the notice or failure to cooperate - Electronic service of notice under Section 35 of BNSS is not permitted as per legislative intent protecting Article 21 rights. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
A criminal petition was filed questioning an order of the Magistrate that authorized the arrest of the petitioner in a case involving allegations of financial fraud and misappropriation. The petitioner argued that the arrest was illegal due to a failure to serve notice and a disregard for Supreme Court guidelines on arrest procedures. The state contended that the petitioner had absconded for 40 days, attempted to evade service of notice, and failed to cooperate with the investigation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the police made bona fide attempts to serve the notice physically for over 40 days and that the petitioner was actively evading service. The court held that the legislative framework specifically excludes the use of electronic communication for service of notices under Section 35, emphasizing the importance of physical service to protect individual liberty. The court affirmed that the petitioner's non-cooperative conduct justified the arrest as an exceptional measure.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the arrest was illegal due to the alleged non-service of notice under Section 35 of the BNSS and whether electronic communication constitutes a valid mode of serving such notices.

Ratio Decidendi: The issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is the rule for offences punishable up to seven years; arrest is an exception to be exercised sparingly. Because the BNSS explicitly prohibits the use of electronic service for Section 35 notices to protect Article 21 rights, physical service is mandatory. A suspect refusing to accept notice or evading service forfeits the protection against arrest.

Result: Petition rejected.

Table of Content
1. factual procedural history involving arrest and challenge under bnss. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. assessment of police compliance with section 35(3) bnss notice requirements during investigation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9)
3. strict requirement for physical service of section 35(3) notice; non-electronic service mandatory. (Para 8 , 10)
4. dismissal of petition due to strict procedural compliance by police. (Para 11)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 PASSED BY THE XXXIX ACJM COURT IN CR.NO.271/2025 BY ADUGODI P.S., THE 1st RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER, WHO ARE ACCUSED NO.1, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 66(C), 66(D) OF I.T ACT, 2000, AND U/S 318(4) OF BNS ACT, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILES OF HON’BLE XXXIX ACJM, BANGALORE COURT AT BANGALORE AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT; b) DIRECT THE POLICE 1st RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE ACCUSED PERSON.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.02.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CAV ORDER

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 ₹39,20,000/- on a bank transfer from their respective accounts. A total collection of ₹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 Invest

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10557

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAM. Nagaprasanna, JYugadev R. – AppellantVersusState Of Karnataka – RespondentCRIMINAL PETITION No.981 OF 2026

Cases Referred (3)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Yugadev R. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.981 OF 2026