Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Satya Niketan PG Operator in Building Collapse Case

A Delhi court on Thursday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Advocate Shubham Tyagi, an operator of the paying-guest facility in the Satya Niketan building that collapsed on September 6, killing seven people and injuring several others.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Court dismissed the plea after weighing the arguments of counsel and the material gathered against Tyagi, including the statement of a student who was injured in the collapse.

The court observed that the rent agreement had been withheld from the bail application and that the investigation remains at a preliminary stage. It held that the circumstances warranted a deeper probe into the applicant's knowledge, consent and financial and operational role in the facility, and concluded that the case did not merit anticipatory bail.

Opposing the plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Mukul Kumar argued that Tyagi was not merely an investor but a co-lessee and business partner of co-accused Sudhanshu. The two, the prosecution said, jointly ran the paying-guest accommodation under the name "Hotel / Hostel Daze".

According to the prosecution, Building No. 14 was taken on a combined monthly rent of Rs 1,05,000 from Urmila Gupta. Two separate rent agreements, both dated September 6, 2025 and covering the same period from September 1, 2025 to August 30, 2026, were executed the same day — one in Sudhanshu's favour for the upper ground and first floors, and the other in Tyagi's favour for the second and third floors of the same building.

The prosecutor further submitted that Tyagi had attached only Sudhanshu's agreement to his bail application while suppressing his own. It was also argued that Tyagi, despite being an advocate, ran a commercial paying-guest facility in an old residential building without the required permissions, and continued to do so even as construction and alteration work was under way in the basement and on the ground floor.

The prosecution maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary to confront the applicant with co-accused persons, trace the money trail of the PG business, establish the extent of his knowledge and consent regarding the structural work, and prevent tampering with evidence or influencing surviving occupants.

Five accused have been arrested in the case so far.