K'taka High Court refuses to interfere with the arrest of a yoga teacher facing cheating allegations

Bengaluru: The high court has refused to entertain the petition filed by a yoga teacher on the grounds of illegal arrest in a crime alleging cheating by soliciting people to invest in a company to register as yoga teachers.

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the police had been searching for the petitioner to hand over the physical copy of 35(3) notice for 40 days and that this would be enough circumstance to take him into custody for non-cooperative behaviour.

The petitioner Yugadev R and his wife started a company named Jai Bhairavi Devi (JBD) Financial Solutions and opened a website soliciting investments. The complainants transferred Rs 98 lakh to the account in the name of Yugadev’s wife.

A complaint was filed on December 3, 2025 for criminal breach of trust, misappropriation and causing wrongful loss and the Audugodi police in Bengaluru registered an FIR on December 9, 2025.

According to the prosecution, the police were searching for Yugadev to serve a notice under BNSS section 35(3) while he dodged the police for more than 40 days. The police finally traced him to Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu and served him the notice. On January 17, 2026, he was taken into custody after he refused to cooperate.

According to the yoga teacher, the police have failed to digitally or physically serve the notice under BNSS section 35(3) on the petitioner and thus failed to follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court. It was further submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature.

It was contended that in the event the petitioner had not cooperated, it was for the police to draw a mahazar that he has refused to accept the notice, intimate to the higher authorities and then take him to custody.

On the other hand, the state submitted that the police had made every effort since the date of registration of FIR by calling him for over 40 days and he kept on moving from one place to another to escape arrest.

Justice Nagaprasanna perused the call record details of the accused/petitioner and said it revealed that he was roaming all over the place and finally police found him at Cuddalore after 40 days.

The police have drawn reasons for arrest that the accused has been absconding, the court said. The arrest made is in strict consonance with the findings of the Apex Court in Satinder Kumar Antil vs CBI case judgment, the court said.

“Issuance of notice under Section 35(3) for offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years is the rule and arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b) is an exception. The Apex Court holds that if Police have reasons to believe that the accused is not cooperating with the investigation, those reasons to believe can form the grounds of arrest,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The court further said, ”The Apex Court holds that electronic communication of the crime or any other communication is not what the legislature has thought of. Section 35(3) does not empower the Police to communicate an electronic copy or by WhatsApp the notice or copy of the FIR. It has to be mandatorily given physically. Therefore, the Police have been searching for the petitioner to hand over a physical copy of 35(3) notice for 40 days. This would be enough circumstance to take the petitioner into custody for non-cooperative behaviour of the petitioner.”