‘No coercive steps’ phrase doesn’t necessarily mean stay or suspension of investigation: Delhi High Court

“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 said.

On January 10, Justice Bhambhani while hearing Bagla’s plea for quashing the FIR issued notice and said, “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.”

The investigating officer (IO) subsequently froze certain bank accounts belonging to Bagla and the companies he was associated with.

Bagla thereafter filed a plea seeking “un-freezing” of the accounts, contending that those accounts were frozen in contravention of the high court’s order dated January 10.

The matter came before a different bench, which referred the matter to Justice Bhambhani for a clarification on the “intent” behind the phrase “coercive measures”.

Justice Bhambhani’s judgment of November 3, interestingly, quoted famous American law professor Fred Rodell, as saying, “There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content.” Justice Bhambhani said that he hopes that the judgment does not feed into the view of Fred Rodell.

The judge observed that no authoritative judicial precedent was cited in the case that gave any specific connotation or meaning to the phrases.

The court clarified that the phrase “coercive measures” in the order was used in the context of what the additional public prosecutor had submitted before the court at that stage and referred to the statement that since Bagla would join the investigation as and when called, the IO did not require his custodial interrogation.

Justice Bhambhani, therefore, said that the prosecutor’s statement was “clearly in relation to” the ongoing investigation and it cannot be said that the IO intended to “suspend investigation or was inviting an order from this court staying investigation”.

The court clarified that the January 10 order did not contain any reference to the court interfering with the ongoing investigation or constraining the investigative powers of the IO.

The court said that the phrase “coercive measures” was used with reference only to the custodial interrogation of the accused.