“No Coercive Measures” Is Contextual and Ordinarily Protects Only Personal Liberty: Delhi High Court Clarifies That Investigative Freezing of Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Is Not Barred Absent an Explicit Stay

Case Comment on Satya Prakash Bagla v. State & Ors., 2025 DHC 9595 (Delhi High Court, 3 November 2025)

Introduction

This judgment resolves a recurrent ambiguity in Indian criminal practice: what does a court mean when it says “no coercive measures” or “no coercive steps”? In Satya Prakash Bagla v. State & Ors., the Delhi High Court (per Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.) clarifies that these phrases have no fixed, universal meaning and derive their content from the context and the stage of proceedings in which they are used. Specifically, the Court holds that the “no coercive measures” recorded in its earlier order of 10 January 2025 protected the petitioner’s personal liberty (i.e., protection from arrest/custodial interrogation) and did not operate as a blanket restraint on the ongoing investigation, including freezing of bank accounts under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The petitioner, under investigation in FIR No. 0089/2024 (P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi) for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, had moved a petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR. When, during the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) froze certain bank accounts under Section 106 BNSS, the petitioner sought “un-freezing,” arguing that such freezing violated the Court’s earlier direction that the IO would seek prior leave before taking any “coercive measures.” A Successor Bench referred the matter back for clarification of the intent behind the phrase “coercive measures.” This judgment gives that clarification and, in the process, sets a guiding rule for interpreting similarly worded interim orders.

Summary of the Judgment

The expressions “coercive measures/steps” are context-dependent and should not be given a fixed, inflexible meaning. Courts must read them in light of what protection was sought and what the court intended to grant at that stage.
In the Court’s 10 January 2025 order, “coercive measures” referred to the petitioner’s custodial interrogation/arrest, i.e., his personal liberty. It did not restrain or stay the ongoing investigation.
Freezing of bank accounts was an investigative step taken under Section 106 BNSS (seizure), not an “attachment” under Section 107 BNSS. The earlier “no coercive measures” notation did not require prior judicial leave for such freezing.
The Supreme Court’s orders in Satish Kumar Ravi were distinguished as they were passed in the backdrop of an explicit direction of “no further action,” unlike the present case.
Any challenge that the freezing ought to have been under Section 107 BNSS (attachment) rather than Section 106 BNSS (seizure) is a separate merits question to be pursued before the competent court; it is unaffected by this clarification.

Factual and Procedural Background

FIR No. 0089/2024 (11 July 2024) at EOW, Delhi: alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC.
Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR.
Order dated 10 January 2025: The Additional Public Prosecutor stated that the petitioner was joining investigation and no custodial interrogation was required “as of now.” It was also recorded that if the IO needed to adopt any “coercive measures,” he would move an application before the Court.
Subsequently, the IO froze bank accounts of the petitioner and related companies by notices to banks under Section 106 BNSS.
The petitioner moved for unfreezing (CRL.M.A. 27925/2025), asserting the freezing violated the “coercive measures” safeguard in the 10 January order.
Successor Bench, by order dated 22 September 2025, referred the matter for clarification from the original Bench on the meaning of “coercive measures” in the 10 January order.

Issues

What is the intended meaning of “coercive measures” in the Court’s order dated 10 January 2025?
Did the phrase restrain the IO from freezing bank accounts under Section 106 BNSS without prior leave?
How should courts and investigators generally approach “no coercive measures” orders going forward?

Submissions

Petitioner

“No coercive measures” is a broad restraint and covers actions prejudicial to rights and liberties, including freezing of bank accounts.
Freezing equals “attachment” of property under Section 107 BNSS, which requires prior notice and hearing before a Magistrate; hence it is coercive and could not have been done without prior leave of the Court in light of the 10 January order.
Reliance on Supreme Court orders in Satish Kumar Ravi: where “no coercive steps”/“no further action” was ordered, filing a chargesheet was treated as contempt; by analogy, freezing too should be barred.

State and Complainants (Respondents)

The 10 January 2025 order dealt only with personal liberty (no custodial interrogation/arrest) in the context that the petitioner was joining investigation. It did not stay investigation.
Freezing of accounts is an investigative step under Section 106 BNSS and was lawfully taken; Chapter V BNSS addresses arrest, while search/seizure/investigation are in different chapters (VII and XIII).
Reliance on the 3-Judge Bench decision in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra: courts should be loathe to pass vague “no coercive steps” orders, and if they do, they must clarify their scope; importantly, High Courts must not thwart investigation absent specific reasons and explicit orders.
The petitioner never objected to other investigative steps taken after 10 January 2025, indicating even he did not treat “coercive measures” as a bar on investigation.
Satish Kumar Ravi turned on an express Supreme Court order of “no further action.” There is no comparable restraint here.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

1) Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401

The Delhi High Court leans on Neeharika’s core holdings to frame its clarification:

The police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences.
Court interference at the investigation stage is exceptional; the default is non-interference.
High Courts should not pass blanket or vague interim orders (e.g., “no coercive steps”) without reasons; if they do, they must clearly specify what such phrases cover.
Absent an express stay and recorded reasons, courts should not thwart investigation.

The High Court imports this discipline to clarify that its own earlier use of “coercive measures” did not intend a clandestine stay of investigation. In other words, the Court applies Neeharika’s insistence on clarity and reasoned restraint to construe the scope of its prior interim protection.

2) Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 9859/2023 (Orders dated 18.08.2023; 01.10.2024; 29.11.2024)

The petitioner invoked these orders to argue that even filing a chargesheet can be “coercive” where “no coercive steps” are in force. The Delhi High Court distinguishes those orders on a critical factual and doctrinal axis:

In Satish Kumar Ravi, the Supreme Court had expressly directed “no further action” against the accused. Despite this, the police filed a chargesheet, which the Court treated as a prima facie breach and cautioned against reliance on administrative instructions asserting otherwise.
Here, there was no such blanket stay or “no further action” direction—only a recorded statement that, if custodial interrogation was required later, the IO would seek leave. Therefore, the Satish Kumar Ravi rationale does not carry over wholesale.

In short, Satish Kumar Ravi underscores that when a court explicitly orders “no further action,” investigative acts like filing a chargesheet may violate the order. It does not establish a general rule that any “no coercive steps” phrasing automatically freezes all investigative measures.

Legal Reasoning

No fixed semantics for “coercive measures”: The Court finds no binding authority that assigns a universal meaning to “coercive measures/steps.” It holds that the phrase must be read contextually, by reference to the relief sought and the Court’s intention at that time.
Context of the 10 January 2025 order: The APP’s statement (recorded in para 7) was that the petitioner was joining investigation and custodial interrogation was not then required; in that context, para 9 noted that if “coercive measures” later became necessary, the IO would seek the Court’s leave. The “coercive measures” thus referenced arrest/custody, not investigatory acts at large.
Separation of arrest from investigation within BNSS: Arrest and related measures fall under Chapter V BNSS, whereas search, seizure, and other investigative actions fall under other Chapters (VII and XIII). The Court’s earlier reference to “coercive measures” did not cede the IO’s statutory powers to investigate, seize, or search—powers integral to investigation and not stayed by that order.
Freezing under Section 106 BNSS vs. attachment under Section 107 BNSS: The IO froze accounts by invoking Section 106 (seizure). The petitioner’s argument that freezing is really “attachment” under Section 107 (which entails show-cause and hearing before a Magistrate) is a merits question to be pursued before the competent court. For present purposes, the Court confines itself to clarifying that its “no coercive measures” recording did not bar such freezing.
Alignment with Neeharika: The judgment is consistent with Neeharika’s insistence that (i) High Courts must not veer into policing investigations absent explicit reasons and orders, and (ii) vague phrases like “no coercive steps” must be made precise by the issuing court.
Nature of the prior “direction”: The Court emphasizes that para 9 of the 10 January 2025 order was not an injunction issued by the Court on its own motion; it recorded a concession/undertaking by the APP. That undertaking pertained to arrest/custody, not to routine investigative action.

Impact and Prospective Significance

Clarifies default meaning: In the absence of explicit language, “no coercive measures” should ordinarily be read as protecting personal liberty (no arrest/custodial interrogation), not as staying the investigation or disabling the police from using routine investigative tools (search, seizure, freezing of accounts, summons, etc.).
Drafting discipline for courts and counsel: - Courts issuing interim protections should specify their ambit (e.g., “no arrest,” “no custodial interrogation,” “no freezing of bank accounts,” “no search,” or a broader “stay of investigation”) and record reasons if investigation is to be stayed. - Defence counsel seeking a broader shield must ask for it expressly and obtain a reasoned order; reliance on generic “no coercive steps” language is unsafe.
Operational clarity for investigators: Investigating agencies may continue routine investigative measures—including freezing bank accounts under Section 106 BNSS—unless there is an explicit stay of investigation or a specific restraint. However, investigators must ensure they invoke the correct statutory route (e.g., 106 vs 107 BNSS) and remain prepared to defend the measure before the competent court.
Harmonization with Supreme Court jurisprudence: The judgment faithfully applies Neeharika’s guidance on avoiding vague blanket restraints and ensuring that any interference with investigation is specific, reasoned, and justified.
Reduced scope for contempt disputes: By affirming that generic “no coercive measures” language is not a stand-in for “no further action,” the judgment reduces collateral disputes over whether filing a chargesheet or freezing accounts was contemptuous unless the order is explicit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Coercive measures/steps”: A colloquial, non-technical phrase used in interim orders. It can cover different things depending on context, but most commonly signals interim protection against arrest/custodial interrogation. It does not automatically amount to a stay on investigation; clarity must be drawn from the order’s text and circumstances.
Custodial interrogation: Questioning an accused while in police custody (post-arrest). Interim “no coercive” orders often primarily protect against this.
Seizure (Section 106 BNSS): A police power to take control of property alleged or suspected to be connected with an offence. Freezing bank accounts is treated as a form of seizure under Section 106 BNSS, undertaken by notifying the bank not to permit operations.
Attachment (Section 107 BNSS): A mechanism to attach property believed to be involved in a crime, typically requiring issuance of notice, a show-cause opportunity, and adjudication by a court. It is distinct from police seizure. Whether a particular freezing should have proceeded under Section 106 or Section 107 is a merits question for the competent forum.
Stay of investigation vs. no arrest: A “stay of investigation” halts the police from taking further steps in the case. A “no arrest/no custodial interrogation” order leaves the investigation running but protects the accused’s personal liberty. Courts require clear wording and reasons to stay an investigation.
Concession recorded vs. judicial direction: Sometimes, an order records an undertaking or statement made by the State (e.g., “the IO will seek leave before arresting”). This is different from a court-initiated injunction and should be read narrowly in line with the concession as articulated.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision provides much-needed clarity on the ubiquitous—and often misunderstood—phrase “no coercive measures.” The Court holds that such phrases are not terms of art with fixed content but must be construed contextually. In the present case, the Court’s earlier use (10 January 2025) was intended to protect the petitioner’s personal liberty by deferring any custodial action absent prior leave; it did not bar the IO from taking legitimate investigative steps such as freezing of bank accounts under Section 106 BNSS.

The judgment harmonizes High Court practice with Neeharika Infrastructure’s discipline against vague, blanket restraints on investigation and reiterates that any stay of investigation must be explicit and reasoned. It also demarcates seizure (Section 106 BNSS) from attachment (Section 107 BNSS), leaving any challenge to the propriety of the freezing mechanism to the competent forum. For future cases, this decision signals a clear drafting and interpretive norm: unless a court unequivocally says otherwise, “no coercive measures” means no arrest/custodial interrogation; it is not a stealth stay on investigation.

Key Takeaways

“No coercive measures” is not a blanket bar on investigation; it ordinarily protects personal liberty.
Freezing bank accounts under Section 106 BNSS is an investigative “seizure,” not per se an “attachment” under Section 107 BNSS.
Courts and counsel should draft and seek precise interim protections; vague phrasing invites disputes.
Satish Kumar Ravi does not equate “no coercive steps” with “no further action” in all cases; explicit orders matter.
Challenges to the legality or modality of freezing (Section 106 vs Section 107) lie before the competent court on merits.