The High Court of Delhi, in a judgment dated 3rd November 2025, has clarified the meaning and intent of the phrase “coercive measures” used in a prior order, ruling that it was employed only in the context of the petitioner’s “personal liberty” and “custodial interrogation,” and did not restrain the Investigating Officer (I.O.) from exercising other investigative powers such as freezing bank accounts.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani on a reference from a Successor Bench, which sought clarification of a phrase in an order dated 10.01.2025, passed by this Bench.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Satya Prakash Bagla, is currently under investigation in FIR No. 0089/2024, registered at the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi, for alleged offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner had filed a petition (CRL.M.C. 103/2025) under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking the quashing of the said FIR.
During a hearing on 10.01.2025, the court had recorded the submission of the Learned APP that the petitioner was “joining investigation as and when called, and the Investigating Officer does not require his custodial interrogation.”
Following this, the court, in para 9 of its order, recorded the APP’s statement: “Upon being queried, learned APP submits, that 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 I.O. proceeded to freeze certain bank accounts belonging to the petitioner and his companies by issuing a notice under section 106 of the BNSS. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner moved an application (CRL.M.A. No. 27925/2025) seeking the “un-freezing” of these accounts, contending that this action constituted a “coercive measure” and was in contravention of the 10.01.2025 order, as prior permission from the court was not obtained.
The matter, when listed before a Successor Bench, was referred back to this Bench (vide order dated 22.09.2025) to clarify the ‘intent’ behind the phrase ‘coercive measures’.
Petitioner’s Submissions
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, argued that the freezing of bank accounts amounted to taking coercive measures, as it “resulted in the petitioner’s business being brought to a standstill.”
The petitioner placed reliance on orders of the Supreme Court in Satish Kumar Ravi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No. 9859/2023), arguing that the apex court had indicated that even the filing of a chargesheet could be considered “coercive action” where an order restraining such action was in place.
It was further argued that freezing a bank account is akin to ‘attachment’ of property under section 107 of the BNSS, a provision which itself stipulates a show-cause notice and hearing, thereby indicating its coercive nature. The petitioner contended that the phrase “coercive measures” could not be given a narrow interpretation to mean only arrest.
Respondents’ Submissions
Appearing for the State and the complainants (respondents Nos. 2 and 3), Mr. Amol Sinha (ASC), Mr. Rajiv Nayyar (Sr. Advocate), and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia (Sr. Advocate) argued that the statement recorded in the 10.01.2025 order was solely in the context of the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest, as reflected in para 7 of that order (which mentioned “custodial interrogation”).
The respondents contended that the court had not stayed the investigation; in fact, the application for stay of investigation (CRL. M.A. No. 560/2025) had not even been issued notice on. Therefore, the phrase “coercive measures” could only refer to the petitioner’s personal liberty and not to the ongoing investigation.
Heavy reliance was placed on the 3-Judge Bench Supreme Court decision in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra ((2021) 19 SCC 401), which held that courts should not “thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences” and that High Courts must “clarify what does it mean by ‘no coercive steps to be adopted’ as the term… can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.”
The respondents clarified that the I.O. had acted under section 106 of the BNSS (power to ‘seize’ property) and not section 107 (power to ‘attach’ property). They also distinguished the Satish Kumar Ravi case by noting that the Supreme Court’s order in that matter had restrained “all further action,” a much broader term than the “coercive measures” phrase used in this case, which was based on a concession from the APP regarding custody.
Court’s Discussion and Clarification
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, after hearing the parties, proceeded to clarify the 10.01.2025 order.
The court observed that no “authoritative judicial precedent” giving a specific meaning to ‘coercive measures’ had been shown. It cited Neeharika Infrastructure, agreeing that the phrase is “too vague and/or broad” and requires clarification based on context.
The judgment held: “In the considered view of this court, the expressions ‘coercive measures’ and ‘coercive steps’ derive their meaning, import and significance from the context and the nature of the proceedings in which they are used. To ascertain the court’s intention in employing these expressions in a given order, it is necessary to examine the nature of the relief or protection that was sought… It would, therefore, be neither appropriate nor judicious for a court to attribute to these expressions any fixed, inflexible, or predetermined meaning.”
The court provided an illustration that in anticipatory bail matters, the phrase is “used only in relation to the personal liberty of a person and nothing more.”
Stating its position unequivocally, the court held: “…it can, however, be stated with certainty that the 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.”
Applying this to the present case, the court clarified that the phrase in its 10.01.2025 order “was used in the context of what the learned APP had submitted before the court at that stage viz., that since the petitioner was joining investigation as and when called, the I.O. did not require the petitioner’s custodial interrogation”.
The court further noted that the 10.01.2025 order “does not contain any reference to this court interfering with the ongoing investigation… or constraining the investigative powers vested in the I.O. under the BNSS, such as the power to seize or attach property, which are integral to investigation.”
Decision
The High Court conclusively clarified its 10.01.2025 order, stating: “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 also observed that the statement in para 9 of the original order “was not a ‘direction’ of the court but was based on the concession offered by the learned APP.”
Regarding the petitioner’s contention that freezing accounts falls under ‘attachment’ (Sec 107 BNSS) rather than ‘seizure’ (Sec 106 BNSS), the court observed that this “would be a matter to be pursued by the petitioner before the concerned court.”
The court directed that the petitions be re-notified before the Roster Bench.
