Delhi building collapse: Court rejects anticipatory bail of accused

A Delhi court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of an accused in the Satya Niketan building collapse case, in which seven people died.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Laler was hearing the pre-arrest bail plea filed by Shubham Tyagi, who was allegedly co-running a paying guest (PG) facility in the building that was reduced to rubble on September 6.

The judge rejected the plea considering the totality of the circumstances — the deaths in the incident, Tyagi’s rent agreement for the second and third floors that was “suppressed” in the plea seeking the relief and the “contemporaneous and mirrored lease in favour of co-accused Sudhanshu, with each signing as witness on the other’s deed”.

The court also noted that there was a “disclosure of a partnership in running PGs at Satya Niketan” and the need for further investigation into knowledge, consent and the financial or operational role of the applicant (Tyagi)”.

It, however, clarified that nothing in the order could be construed as opinion on the merits of the case.

Tyagi told the court that he was an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, and had been practising in the Patiala House Courts.

The accused claimed that he was merely a friend who had invested money in the PG business run by Sudhanshu, and that he had no ownership, title or control over the building’s structure.

He relied on a notarised rent agreement dated September 6, 2025, between owner Urmila Gupta and Sudhanshu for the upper ground and first floors, arguing that the FIR did not name him or attribute any specific act to him.

The prosecutor, however, produced a second rent agreement, also dated September 6, 2025, showing Tyagi as lessee of the second and third floors of the same building, on identical terms.

The court noted that this agreement was not disclosed by Tyagi in his application and was placed on record only by the investigating agency during arguments.

It further noted that the two agreements were executed minutes apart via the same stamp-vendor account, and that each accused had signed as a witness on the other’s document, a pattern the court said was “consistent with a joint venture rather than a unilateral tenancy” of Sudhanshu.

The court also referred to the statement of an injured student, Nitish Chib, who said he had taken accommodation from both Tyagi and Sudhanshu at Rs 14,500 per month.

According to the statement, when Chib and other students complained about construction noise and iron rods being cut on the ground floor, both accused told them that renovation was underway and the PG would be extended into the basement. They allegedly threatened the students with eviction if they persisted with their complaints.

Underlining that Tyagi was not a stranger to the building and that the non-disclosure of his own rent agreement while portraying himself as a mere investor amounted to the concealment of a material document, the court said this weighed heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail.

Also Read: After Satya Niketan collapse, fears mount over unsafe buildings

It said the investigation was at an initial stage and Tyagi’s custodial interrogation was required to confront him with the co-accused, trace the money trail of the PG business, and ascertain the extent of knowledge and consent regarding the structural work.

On Monday, a court had sent the building owner, Hariram, an 81-year-old retired Indian Air Force sergeant, and his 75-year-old wife Urmila to 14-day judicial custody, while their 52-year-old son Mahesh was remanded in police custody for two days.

According to police, Mahesh had leased the property to Sudhanshu and Tyagi in August 2025. The duo subsequently started operating the premises as a PG under the name ‘Hostel Daze’.

The five-storey building housed several students and other residents.

According to the FIR, a local inquiry found that the building was several years old and that additional floors had been constructed allegedly for rental income. Investigators are probing whether the additional construction had put pressure on the existing structure.