The Delhi High Court has clarified that the phrase ‘no coercive steps’ does not imply halting an investigation. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ruled that such orders protect personal liberty but don’t restrict lawful investigative actions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has clarified that court directions stating “no coercive measures” or “no coercive steps” do not automatically imply a stay or suspension of ongoing investigations against an accused person. The clarification came from Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.
Court’s Observation
Justice Bhambhani emphasized that the phrases “no coercive measures” or “no coercive steps” derive their significance from the context and nature of the proceedings 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 be construed as necessarily implying a stay or suspension of any ongoing investigation against that person,”
the Court observed.
The judge further noted that the intention of the court in using such phrases must be interpreted based on the relief sought and what the court actually intended to grant at that stage of the case.
Justice Bhambhani cautioned that courts should avoid attributing a fixed or inflexible meaning to these expressions. For instance, in cases involving anticipatory bail, the phrase “no coercive measures” typically protects a person’s personal liberty, preventing arrest, but does not halt the investigation itself.
“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,”
the order stated.
Case Background
The clarification arose in connection with a reference made by a successor bench regarding the interpretation of the term “coercive measures” in Justice Bhambhani’s January 10 order in the case involving businessman Satya Prakash Bagla, who is under investigation by the Delhi Police Economic Offences Wing (EOW).
In that earlier order, the judge had recorded the State’s assurance that the investigating officer (IO) would seek the court’s permission before taking any “coercive measures” against Bagla.
Bagla’s lawyers argued that the freezing of his bank accounts was a coercive action that violated the order. They cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satish Kumar Ravi v State of Jharkhand, where filing a chargesheet despite a “no coercive action” order was treated as contempt.
However, the State and complainants countered that the order merely protected Bagla from arrest and did not prevent the continuation of the investigation. They relied on the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure v State of Maharashtra, which warned against vague interim orders that could obstruct investigations.
Delhi High Court’s Judgment
After reviewing the submissions, Justice Bhambhani clarified that the term “coercive measures”, as used in his January 10 order, only referred to actions related to Bagla’s arrest or custodial interrogation.
It did not prevent the police from continuing investigative steps such as freezing bank accounts or collecting evidence.
Appearance:
Satya Prakash Bagla: 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
The State: Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Amol Sinha with advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Chavi Lazarus and Nitish Dhawan
Other respondents: Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Anurag Ahluwalia with advocates Devika Mohan, Sunanda Choudhury and Annirudh Sharma
Case Title:
Satya Prakash Bagla v State & Ors
CRL.M.C. 103/2025, CRL. M.A. 560/2025
READ JUDGMENT
