Mere Use Of The Phrase “No Coercive Measures” Does Not Mean Stay On Investigation: Delhi High Court
The High Court held that expressions such as “no coercive measures” or “no coercive steps” cannot automatically be interpreted as a restraint on investigation, arrest, search, seizure, or freezing of assets, and must be understood in the context in which they were issued.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, Delhi High Court
Clarifying the legal implications of the phrase “no coercive measures,” the Delhi High Court has held that a general statement of this nature does not imply a stay or suspension of ongoing criminal investigation.
The Court ruled that such expressions must be read in the context in which they were made and cannot be assigned a fixed or universal meaning.
The High Court was hearing a plea filed by a businessman seeking clarification on an earlier court order, which had recorded that investigative authorities would move an application before taking coercive measures against him. The petitioner claimed that despite this protection, police froze multiple bank accounts linked to him and his companies, and such freezing amounted to coercive action prohibited under the earlier order.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, upon hearing the matter, clarified that “the mere articulation of the phrases ‘no coercive measures’ or ‘no coercive steps’ with reference to a person cannot be construed as necessarily implying a stay or suspension of any ongoing investigation against that person.”
Senior Advocates Sudhir Nandrajog and Anil Soni appeared for the petitioners, while Amol Sinha, ASC, represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner was under investigation in an FIR registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code relating to cheating and criminal breach of trust. He filed a petition under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of the FIR.
The High Court issued notice and recorded the State’s submission that if custodial interrogation became necessary, the Investigating Officer would move an appropriate application before the Court before taking any coercive steps.
Subsequently, the Economic Offences Wing froze multiple bank accounts belonging to the petitioner and his associated companies under Section 106 BNSS. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application arguing that freezing of bank accounts amounted to a coercive measure prohibited under the previous order.
A successor bench hearing the application sought clarification from the same bench that issued the earlier order. The matter was therefore placed before Justice Bhambhani for the determination of the true meaning and intent behind the phrase "coercive measures" used in the order dated 10 January 2025.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court clarified that the phrase “coercive measures” does not have a fixed legal meaning and must be interpreted based on context. It held that such terminology is often used to protect personal liberty, particularly protection from arrest, rather than to restrain investigation.
The Court observed that identifying a universal definition is neither advisable nor judicially correct, stating that expressions like “coercive measures” derive their meaning from the surrounding circumstances, the relief sought, and what the Court intended to protect at that stage.
Referring to the earlier proceedings, the Court noted that the State had expressly informed the Court that the petitioner was cooperating with the investigation and custodial interrogation was not required. The Court stated that the phrase was used only in relation to the petitioner’s personal liberty and not as a restraint on investigation.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which cautioned that directions such as “no coercive steps” are vague and should not be mechanically construed as a blanket prohibition on investigation. The Supreme Court had stressed that police possess a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences, and courts ought not interfere unless justified by compelling reasons.
Addressing the petitioner’s argument that freezing of bank accounts amounted to attachment, the Court clarified that the action was taken under Section 106 BNSS, which empowers seizure of property during investigation, and did not fall under Section 107 BNSS dealing with judicial attachment. Therefore, the freezing of bank accounts was legally permissible as part of an ongoing investigation and did not violate the earlier order.
Conclusion
Clarifying the scope of its earlier order, the High Court held that “coercive measures” in the context of the previous order referred only to arrest or custodial steps affecting personal liberty. It did not bar the investigation or prevent authorities from freezing bank accounts under statutory powers.
The Court therefore rejected the petitioner’s interpretation and clarified that the investigation was never stayed. The matter was directed to be placed before the roster bench for further proceedings.
Cause Title: Satya Prakash Bagla v. State & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9595)
Appearances
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Sudhir Nandrajog and Anil Soni, with Advocates Sanjay Abbott, Arshdeep Khurana, Dikksha Ramnani and others
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar, Amol Sinha, ASC, with Advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Chavi Lazarus, Nitish Dhawan and others