Evading notice under BNSS can constitute valid grounds for arrest: Karnataka High Court

Non-cooperation with law enforcement, including the deliberate 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 arrest of an accused even if the alleged offence is punishable up to seven years or less, requiring issuance of notice before arrest, said the High Court of Karnataka.

To be given 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; it must be provided in physical form. It cited the apex court’s recent ruling that states that serving notices through electronic modes under Section 35 of the BNSS has been consciously omitted by the legislature.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by Yogadev R., a Tamil Nadu-based self-styled yoga teacher-turned financial consultant, challenging his arrest by the Bengaluru city police on the ground that he wasn’t served a prior notice in an alleged cheating case.

The case pertains to allegations that the petitioner and his wife, who ran a company named Jai Bhairavi Devi Financial Solutions, solicited investments through a website and collected approximately ₹39 lakh from three complainants before allegedly misappropriating the funds. The complaint against the petitioner was registered on December 9, 2025.

Evaded notice

As the BNSS mandates that the police serve a physical copy of the notice under Section 35(3), the police had made several attempts to reach the petitioner for 40 days; however, he kept changing his locations to evade service of the notice. Finally, in mid January 2026, he was eventually traced to Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu and was arrested for not cooperating with the police in the investigation by evading receipt of the notice.

The police were required to serve notice first, as the offence alleged against him is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years, and therefore did not permit immediate arrest at the outset, the court noted.

“At the time when the accused would not cooperate with receiving the notice or otherwise, the accused would become open to arrest. In the present case, the accused had dodged service of notice for over 40 days. The call record details of the accused/petitioner reveal that he was roaming all over the place, and finally, the police found him at Cuddalore after 40 days… This would be enough circumstance to take the petitioner into custody for the petitioner’s non-cooperative behaviour,” the court said.