Court order saying 'no coercive steps' does not mean stay on investigation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has clarified that a court order saying ‘no coercive measures’ or ‘no coercive steps’ with reference to an accused person does mean a stay on or suspension of the ongoing investigation in the concerned case [Satya Prakash Bagla v State & Ors]. 

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that these expressions derive their meaning, import and significance from the context and nature of the proceeding in which they are used. 

“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,” the Court observed. 

It explained that 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 and what the court intended to grant to a party at the relevant stage of the proceedings. 

“It would, therefore, be neither appropriate nor judicious for a court to attribute to these expressions any fixed, inflexible, or predetermined meaning. To give an illustration, this phrase is commonly used when a court grants interim relief to a person seeking anticipatory bail; in which case, the phrase is used only in relation to the personal liberty of a person and nothing more.”

Justice Bhambhani’s observations came while dealing with a reference made by a successor bench seeking clarification of the phrase “coercive measures” contained in his (Justice Bhambhani’s) order of January 10 in a case filed by businessman Satya Prakash Bagla.

Bagla is under investigation by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW).

In the January 10 order, Justice Bhambhani had taken the State’s submission on record that if and when the investigating officer (IO) “requires to adopt any coercive measures against the petitioner, he would move an appropriate application before this court prior to taking any such action”.

Bagla’s lawyers argued that freezing his bank accounts amounted to a coercive action that violated the court’s direction. They cited Supreme Court orders in Satish Kumar Ravi v State of Jharkhand, which treated the filing of a chargesheet despite a ‘no coercive action’ order as contempt.

The State and complainants countered that Justice Bhambhani’s order was meant only to prevent Bagla’s arrest and did not bar investigative steps. They relied on the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Neeharika Infrastructure v  State of Maharashtra, which cautioned courts against halting investigations through vague interim orders such as ‘no coercive steps’.

After considering the case, Justice Bhambhani clarified that the term ‘coercive measures’, as used in his earlier order, referred solely to actions concerning his arrest or custodial interrogation and did not restrict the police from continuing their investigation, including freezing of bank accounts. 

Senior Advocates Sudhir Nandrajog and Anil Soni along with advocates Sanjay Abbott, Arshdeep Khurana, Dikksha Ramnani, Apoorv Agarwal, Pritish Sabharwal, Manav Goyal and Ritika Gusain appeared for Satya Prakash Bagla. 

Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Amol Sinha with advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Chavi Lazarus and Nitish Dhawan represented the State. 

Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Anurag Ahluwalia with advocates Devika Mohan, Sunanda Choudhury and Annirudh Sharma appeared for other respondents. 

[Read Order]