Freezing of bank accounts is not a "coercive measure" aimed at personal liberty

Delhi High Court Clarifies Definition of "Coercive Measures" in Ongoing Investigation. Freezing of Bank Accounts Deemed Part of Routine Investigation, Not a Coercive Measure Affecting Personal Liberty

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, has clarified the interpretation of "coercive measures" in the context of ongoing criminal investigations. The court ruled that freezing bank accounts during an investigation does not constitute a coercive measure targeting personal liberty. This decision arose from the case of Satya Prakash Bagla, who challenged the freezing of his bank accounts by the Economic Offences Wing under Sections 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner, under investigation for alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, argued that the freezing of his accounts amounted to coercive action, violating a prior court order requiring the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to seek court permission before taking any coercive steps. However, the court clarified that the term "coercive measures," as used in its previous order, was intended solely to protect the petitioner's personal liberty, particularly against arrest, and did not extend to investigative actions such as account freezing.

The court emphasized that the meaning of "coercive measures" depends on the context and nature of the proceedings. It rejected the notion that the term implies a suspension of investigation, underscoring that investigative actions, like freezing accounts under Section 106 of the BNSS, are routine and necessary processes. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court's guidance that courts should refrain from interfering with police investigations unless exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention.

The judgment further distinguished the case from precedent cases cited by the petitioner, such as Satish Kumar Ravi v. The State of Jharkhand, where the Supreme Court had ordered no further action against the accused. In contrast, the current case lacked any blanket restraint on investigative procedures.

This ruling reaffirms the autonomy of investigative agencies to pursue their inquiries without undue judicial interference, maintaining the balance between individual rights and the need for effective law enforcement.

Bottom Line:

Interpretation of the term "coercive measures" in the context of investigation of a case under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Sections 106 and 107 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Freezing of bank accounts was held not to be a "coercive measure" aimed at personal liberty but part of ongoing investigation.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 406 and 420 IPC, Sections 106 and 107 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Satya Prakash Bagla v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2803497