Mere 'No Coercive Steps' Phrase Doesn't imply Stay Or Suspension Of Investigation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the mere phrase “no coercive steps” does not imply stay or suspension of investigation against an individual.

“….mere articulation of the phrases "no coercive measures" or "no coercive steps" with reference to a person cannot to be construed as necessarily implying a stay or suspension of any ongoing investigation against that person,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one Satya Prakash Bagla, accused in a cheating case, seeking quashing of the FIR registered by EOW.

While issuing notice in the plea, the coordinate bench had said “if and when the I.O. requires to adopt any coercive measures against the petitioner, he would move an appropriate application before this court prior to taking any such action.”

Subsequently, the Investigating Officer took certain steps during investigation, one of which was to freeze certain bank accounts belonging to Bagla and to companies with which he was connected.

Bagla then moved an application seeking unfreezing of the accounts, contending that the I.O. could not have frozen the bank accounts without obtaining prior permission of this court.

It was his case that freezing of the bank accounts amounted to taking coercive measures against him, since it had resulted in his business being brought to a standstill.

The prosecution took a stand that the direction restraining coercive measures was intended only to protect Baa from being arrested, without prior permission of the court.

It was submitted that it was not the intent of that direction to restrain the I.O. from investigating the matter.

Justice Bhambhani began the judgment by saying that he hopes that the ruling does not feed into the view of Fred Rodell, a well-known American professor of law, who famously said: “There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content.”

The Court said it would neither be appropriate nor judicious for a Court to attribute to the expressions in question any fixed, inflexible, or predetermined meaning.

The Court clarified the phrased used in the order was in the context of what the APP had submitted before the court at that stage.

It added that the reference made by the APP to Bagla joining investigation was clearly in relation to the ongoing investigation and it could not be said that the I.O. intended to suspend investigation or was inviting an order from this court staying investigation.

“However, that is not the case in the present matter; and the meaning and intent of the phrase “coercive measures” was not to restrain further investigation against the petitioner. The phrase “coercive measures” was used in order dated 10.01.2025 with reference only to the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, and was therefore used in the context only of the petitioner‟s personal liberty,” the Court said.

It concluded that the phrase “coercive measures” did not apply to freezing of bank accounts”. The matter is now listed for hearing before the roster bench on November 06.

Title: SATYA PRAKASH BAGLA v. STATE

Click here to read order