In a significant legal development, a Delhi court has denied anticipatory bail to Shubham Tyagi, an advocate implicated in the collapse of a paying-guest (PG) building in Satya Niketan, which resulted in the tragic death of seven individuals. The decision was delivered on Thursday by Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler at the Patiala House Courts.
Details of the Court’s Decision
The court’s decision to reject Tyagi’s bail plea was influenced by evidence that he allegedly concealed a rent agreement that identified him as a lessee of the building. Judge Laler emphasized that anyone renting out property as a PG facility bears the responsibility of ensuring the building’s safety and must be vigilant about its condition.
“If construction is ongoing and occupants raise concerns, the minimum that should be expected is a report to the owner, and if the owner fails to respond, then to the relevant authorities—not threats to evict occupants,” stated Judge Laler.
Background of the Incident
The tragic incident occurred on September 6, when the building, operating under the name “Hostel Daze” in the Satya Niketan Market, collapsed. The disaster claimed the lives of five students and two laborers.
Tyagi, who is registered with the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), contended that his involvement was limited to financial investment in the PG business, which he claimed was managed by his associate, Sudhanshu Lovenish Kumar. He argued that he had no direct control over or awareness of the building’s structural integrity. To support his defense, he presented a rent agreement indicating Kumar as the lessee.
More Read
Prosecution’s Evidence and Court’s Findings
However, the prosecution countered with a separate rent agreement that portrayed Tyagi as the lessee of parts of the building, specifically the second and third floors, under terms similar to those in Kumar’s agreement. The court examined these agreements and noted they were notarized by the same notary, generated from the same e-stamp account within minutes of each other, and that Tyagi and Kumar served as witnesses on each other’s documents.
The court concluded that this evidence pointed to a joint business venture rather than an individual tenancy arrangement. Tyagi’s failure to disclose his own rent agreement was deemed a breach of the candor expected from applicants seeking anticipatory bail.
Further supporting the prosecution’s case was the testimony of Nitish Chib, an injured resident. Chib asserted that both Tyagi and Kumar collected rent and were aware of construction activities, including iron-cutting, on the building’s lower floors. When residents raised objections, they were reportedly threatened with eviction.
More Read
Legal Representation
Tyagi was represented by advocates Ankita Gautam, Abhishek Sharma, Harsh Gautam, Keshav Pratap Singh, and Neeraj Kanwar, while Additional Public Prosecutor Mukul Kumar represented the State.
