The Delhi High Court has drawn a clear line between judicial restraint and investigative paralysis. A routine yet often-misinterpreted phrase—“no coercive steps”—does not mean that the investigation must grind to a halt.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, addressing the ambiguity surrounding such expressions, explained that their meaning is entirely shaped by the context in which they appear. “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,” he clarified.
The Court emphasized that one must look beyond the words and into the intent behind them—what relief was actually sought, and what the court meant to grant. For instance, in cases involving anticipatory bail, “no coercive steps” typically shields personal liberty, not investigative progress.
The clarification came in a case involving businessman Satya Prakash Bagla, who is under the scanner of the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing. His legal team argued that the freezing of his bank accounts violated an earlier court order that mentioned “no coercive measures.”
Justice Bhambhani’s earlier order, dated January 10, had directed that any coercive step—like arrest—should only follow with the court’s approval. However, the latest clarification makes it explicit that the phrase applied solely to Bagla’s personal liberty and did not extend to halting legitimate investigative actions such as freezing accounts.
The State relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021), which warned against vague interim protections that unintentionally obstruct investigations.
In the end, the High Court reaffirmed a principle too often blurred by interpretation: “No coercive steps” protects freedom, not impunity. Investigations, the Court underscored, must continue their course unless expressly stayed.
