Karnataka Court Upholds Yoga Teacher's Arrest After 40 Days of Absconding

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed yoga teacher Yugadev R's petition challenging his arrest, ruling that 40-plus days of evasion left police with no alternative but to take him into custody. Yugadev R faces allegations of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, and cheating, the latter involving soliciting people to invest in a company on the premise of registering them as yoga teachers.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in an order dated March 25, found that police had spent 40 days attempting to physically serve Yugadev R a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha and that his consistent non-cooperation was itself sufficient grounds for arrest. The bench was direct: "No right of the petitioner, much less a constitutional right, is lost, in the police taking the petitioner into custody."

The case turned on whether police must physically serve a notice before making an arrest and whether electronic delivery satisfies that requirement. Justice Nagaprasanna resolved both points against Yugadev R, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil versus the Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025, which held that police cannot communicate a notice or a copy of the FIR electronically or via WhatsApp; the document must be handed over in person.

Yugadev R had argued that police failed to serve the notice either digitally or physically, and therefore did not follow the Supreme Court's own guidelines. The bench rejected that position on two grounds. First, call records reviewed by the court showed he "was roaming all over the place" throughout the period police attempted service. Second, a magistrate court had separately recorded that the petitioner refused to accept the notice and refused to cooperate with the investigation. The bench noted that police had documented their reasons for the arrest, citing both the absconding conduct and the magistrate's findings.

Additional State Public Prosecutor B. N. Jagadeesha told the court that from the moment the FIR was registered, police made every effort to reach the petitioner. According to the prosecution, Yugadev R "kept moving from one place to another to escape arrest" and was only taken into custody after that sustained evasion.

The bench summarized its reasoning precisely: "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 specific details of the alleged scheme, including the company name, the amounts solicited, and the number of complainants, have not been publicly disclosed in proceedings reported so far. Whether Yugadev R pursues bail or challenges the order further, the bench's reliance on call records and a prior magistrate finding leaves his legal position significantly weakened going forward.