Advocate Sayed Khaleel Pasha, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner’s right of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated due to the alleged illegal arrest. (File Photo)The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a yoga teacher’s petition against his arrest, saying that if police had been trying for 40 days to serve him a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS) and he had not cooperated, it was grounds to take him into custody.In an order dated March 25, Justice M Nagaprasanna referred to a Supreme Court order in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 2025, wherein the court said that the police cannot communicate the notice or a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) electronically or via WhatsApp; it must be given physically. Then, the court said, “No right of the petitioner, much less a constitutional right, is lost, in the police taking the petitioner into custody.”As per the case details, the accused, Yugadev R, started a finance company with his wife, and the complainants deposited some amount in it. The complainant, Ankit Bhauwala, and others accused Yugadev of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, and causing wrongful loss. A complaint was registered under sections 66C (Punishment for Identity theft) and 66D (Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 318(4) (cheating) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.Since the offences are punishable with a sentence of seven years or less of imprisonment, the police must serve a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS and direct the accused to participate in the investigation. However, Yugadev allegedly dodged the police for 40 days by moving from one place to another. He was finally traced in Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, and served the notice. As the accused failed to cooperate with the investigation, the police arrested him and produced him before the magistrate court.Also Read | Police cannot make arrest to ‘simply ask questions’: Supreme Court mandates notice under BNSS for offences punishable by up to 7 years in prisonAdvocate Sayed Khaleel Pasha, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner’s right of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated due to the alleged illegal arrest. He claimed that police had failed to serve grounds of the arrest, and that even assuming the petitioner has not cooperated, it was for the police to draw a mahazar (a written record) that he has refused to accept the notice, inform the higher authorities, and then take him to custody. Further, the counsel argued that the matter is purely civil in nature and criminal prosecution could not have been initiated.Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha argued that since the FIR was registered, the police made every effort to serve the notice to the petitioner. However, he kept moving from one place to another to escape arrest. Since he did not cooperate with the police investigation, he was arrested, he added.Also Read | Aishwarya Gowda fraud cases: Karnataka HC to decide on arrest after sessions court rejects anticipatory bail pleasThe bench noted in its order that the call record details of the accused/petitioner reveal that he was roaming all over the place. “The police have drawn up reasons for arrest of the accused as he has been absconding and the magistrate court in its order also recorded that the petitioner did not accept the notice and refused to cooperate with the investigation,” the bench said.Story continues below this adJustice Nagaprasanna then said, “All the nuances of arrest are followed in the case at hand and the petitioner is then taken into custody. Therefore, the order impugned suffers from no illegality and does not deserve to be quashed.”