Karnataka High Court View | Photo credit: File photo
Non-cooperation with the law enforcement authorities, including willful avoidance of receiving a notice from the police under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), can become a valid ground for the arrest of an accused, even if the alleged offense is punishable by up to seven years or less, requiring a notice to be issued before arrest, the Karnataka High Court has said.
Give physically
The court also noted that Section 35(3) does not empower the police to serve notices or copies of the First Information Report (FIR) through electronic means such as WhatsApp; must be provided in physical form. He cited a recent decision of the Supreme Court, which states that delivery of notices through electronic modes under Section 35 of the BNSS was deliberately omitted by the legislature.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by Yogadev R, a self-proclaimed Tamil Nadu-based yoga teacher-turned-financial advisor, challenging his arrest by the Bengaluru City Police on the grounds of lack of prior notice in an alleged cheating case.
The case relates to allegations that the petitioner and his wife, who ran a company called Jai Bhairavi Devi Financial Solutions, solicited investments through a website and collected around ₹39,000 from three complainants before allegedly misappropriating the funds. The complaint against the petitioner was registered on 9 December 2025.
Leaked notification
Since the BNSS orders the police to deliver a physical copy of the notice under Section 35(3), the police made several attempts to contact the petitioner over a period of 40 days; however, he kept changing his places to avoid being notified. He was finally traced to Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu in mid-January 2026 and was arrested for not cooperating with the police in the investigation by avoiding receiving a report.
The police were obliged to notify first because the crime he is accused of carries a prison sentence of not more than seven years and therefore did not allow immediate arrest at the outset, the court noted.
“By the time the accused did not cooperate in receiving the notice or otherwise, the accused would be ready to be arrested. In this case, the accused avoided serving the notice for more than 40 days. The call records of the accused/petitioner reveal that he was roaming all over the place and eventually the police found him at Cuddalore after 40 days… This would be sufficient to take the circumstances of the petitioner into account to entertain the petition. conduct,” the court said.
Published – 30 March 2026 18:58 IST
