Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru heard a criminal petition filed by the petitioner, who was accused No.1 in Crime No.271 of 2025, challenging an arrest order dated 19-01-2026 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and XXXIX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), related to allegations of cheating, fraud, and misappropriation involving investments solicited through a website run by the petitioner and his wife. The police registered the crime on 09-12-2025 and attempted to serve a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the petitioner for questioning. The petitioner evaded police for over 40 days, moving between locations, and was finally traced to Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, where on 17-01-2026, he refused to accept the notice and did not cooperate, leading to his arrest at 5:45 p.m. He was produced before a Magistrate at 9:32 p.m. on the same day, and an arrest order was passed on 19-01-2026. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking to quash the arrest order and dismiss the complaint, arguing that the police failed to serve the mandatory notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, violating guidelines from Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22. The respondent State contended that the police made diligent efforts, including call records and geo-location evidence, and the petitioner's refusal to cooperate justified the arrest. The court analyzed the submissions and material on record, noting that the police had attempted service multiple times, the petitioner dodged service, and upon refusal, proper arrest intimation and grounds were furnished. The court held that the police complied with Section 35(3) of BNSS and the Satender Kumar Antil guidelines, and there was no violation of constitutional rights. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding the arrest order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Arrest and Custody - Mandatory Notice Under Section 35(3) BNSS - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 35(3) - Petitioner challenged arrest alleging police failed to serve notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, violating guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil case - Court found police made efforts over 40 days, petitioner dodged service, and notice was attempted on 17-01-2026 but petitioner refused to cooperate - Held that police complied with mandatory requirements and arrest was lawful (Paras 4-10). B) Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty - Articles 21 and 22 Violation - Constitution of India, Articles 21, 22 - Petitioner contended arrest violated right to personal liberty under Article 21 and procedural safeguards under Article 22 - Court observed petitioner evaded police, refused notice, and was produced before Magistrate within 24 hours - Held no violation of constitutional rights as arrest followed due process (Paras 4-7). C) Criminal Law - Quashing of Orders - Section 528 BNSS - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS to quash arrest order dated 19-01-2026 and dismiss complaint - Court examined facts and found no illegality in arrest procedure - Held petition devoid of merit and dismissed, upholding arrest order (Paras 1-11). D) Evidence and Investigation - Police Procedure - Service of Notice and Arrest Intimation - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 35(3), 36 - Police issued notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, petitioner refused, arrest intimation and grounds furnished, produced before Magistrate within 24 hours - Court noted call records and geo-location showed petitioner dodging service - Held police followed proper procedure as per BNSS (Paras 7-10).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the arrest of the petitioner was illegal due to alleged non-compliance with Section 35(3) of BNSS and guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and whether the order of arrest should be quashed.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Petition dismissed. Arrest order upheld. No illegality found in arrest procedure.
