While addressing a reference made by a successor bench for clarification of a phrase contained in an order passed on 10-01-2025 regarding the interpretation of the phrase “coercive measures”, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anup Jairam clarified that the said phrase was used only regarding the custodial interrogation of the petitioner and not to interfere with the investigation of the Investigating Officer regarding the alleged offences committed by the petitioner.
The petitioner was under investigation for offences alleged to have been committed by him under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Hence, he filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), for quashing a First Information Report (FIR). While issuing notice on the present petition, the Court recorded the submission of the Investigating Officer (IO), who stated that he would move an appropriate application before the Court if and when he adopts any coercive measures against the petitioner.
Thereafter, the IO froze the bank accounts of the petitioner and of companies to which the petitioner was connected by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the BNSS. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved an application against said action, contending that the same was done in contradiction to what was recorded in the order dated 10-01-2025.
The matter came to be listed before the successor bench, and the same was referred to the present bench for the petitioner to obtain clarification regarding the ‘intent’ behind the phrase ‘coercive measures’ in the said order.
The petitioner contended that the IO’s action to freeze the petitioner’s bank accounts was a coercive measure that could have been done only after obtaining prior permission from the Court. It was also submitted that ‘coercive measures’ could not be given a narrow interpretation to mean only ‘arrest’.
The respondents, along with the State, contended that ‘coercive measures’ could not have had any reference to the ongoing investigation in the case and that the phrase was used by the Court only regarding the personal liberty of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the IO was well within his powers under Section 106 of the BNSS when freezing the petitioner’s bank accounts.
The respondents also submitted that the direction regarding ‘no coercive measures’ was based on a concession offered by the IO and that this did not amount to the IO surrendering his powers as provided under Chapters VII and XIII of BNSS.
The Court said that to ascertain the Court’s intention, it is important to examine the nature of the relief that was sought and what the Court intended to grant to a party at the relevant stage of the proceedings. It was stated that mere articulation of ‘no coercive measures’ with reference to a person could not be construed as necessarily implying a stay on any ongoing investigation against that person.
It was held that the said order did not have any reference regarding this Court’s interference in the ongoing investigation against the petitioner or constraining the investigative powers vested in the IO through the BNSS, which are of high importance to the investigation.
Further, the Court clarified that the phrase ‘coercive measures’ was used in the said order while referring only to the custodial interrogation of the petitioner and therefore, only in the context of the petitioner’s personal liberty. The Court also mentioned that the para containing the phrase ‘coercive measures’ was not a direction but only based on the concession offered on behalf of the IO.
Lastly, the Court observed that if the petitioner contends that his bank accounts can only be frozen while exercising powers of ‘attachment’ contained in Section 107 of BNSS and not while exercising powers of a Police Officer to ‘seize’ property under Section 106 of BNSS, this would have to be pursued by the petitioner before the court concerned.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Mr. Anil Soni, Mr. Sanjay Abbott, Mr. Arshdeep Khurana, Ms. Dikksha Ramnani, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Mr. Manav Goyal, Ms. Ritika Gusain
For Respondents – Mr. Amol Sinha, Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Ms. Devika Mohan, Ms. Sunanda Choudhury, Mr. Anurag Alhuwalia, Mr. Annirudh Sharma
