BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has said that an accused can be arrested if he evades the notice issued to him under Section 35(3) of BNSS and does not cooperate with the officers investigating his crime.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed this order on March 25, rejecting a petition filed by Yugadev R from Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu, questioning the arrest order issued on January 19 by the additional chief judicial magistrate in a crime registered under Section 66C of the IT Act and Section 318(4) of BNS with Adugodi police in the city. Citing a verdict of the apex court, the high court said that Section 35(3) does not empower the police to communicate an electronic copy or by WhatsApp the notice or copy of FIR. It has to be mandatorily given in person.
The police searched the petitioner for 40 days to hand over the notice. This non-cooperative behaviour of the accused was enough for the police to take him into custody. Three persons, including Anki Bhauwala from Wilson Garden in the city, registered a complaint against the petitioner and his wife.
The petitioner and his wife introduced themselves as yoga teachers and started running a company, Jai Bhairavi Devi Financial Solutions, and received investments through a website. The complainants are said to have invested Rs 39.20 lakh. The complaint was registered in December 2025 for criminal breach of trust, misappropriation and causing wrongful loss.
The police wanted to serve the notice under Section 35(3) and began looking for the petitioner, who dodged them for more than 40 days. They found him in Cuddalore and served the notice. As he refused to cooperate, he was taken into custody on January 17. An arrest intimation was issued to his relatives and he was produced before the local magistrate.
The advocate for the accused challenged his arrest, contending that it was illegal. Later, he was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate court in the city, which passed the arrest order.
Challenging this order, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the police have failed to digitally or physically serve the notice under Section 35(3) to his client. This violated the guidelines issued by the apex court.
Refuting it, additional state public prosecutor BN Jagadeesha contended that the police tried to serve the notice several times and made efforts to contact him for more than 40 days. Finally, the police found him in Cuddalore, where he refused to accept the notice. Therefore, he was arrested, Jagadeesha said, furnishing call records and geo-location of the petitioner.