New Delhi, Sep 11 — A Delhi court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of advocate Shubham Tyagi in connection with the Satya Niketan building collapse case, observing that his claim of being merely an investor in the paying-guest (PG) business was prima facie contradicted by a separate rent agreement showing him as a co-lessee of two floors of the building.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Court rejected Tyagi’s plea under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), stating that seven people, including five students and two labourers, had died in the collapse of Building No. 14 at Satya Niketan Market in Moti Bagh-II.
The court said the applicant’s own rent agreement, which was allegedly not disclosed in his bail application, showed that he had taken the second and third floors of the building on rent specifically for running a boys’ PG.
"A person who takes an old multi-storeyed structure on rent for the commercial purpose of housing students as paying guests, and who continues to operate that facility while structural work — including basement excavation and cutting of iron on the ground floor — is underway over the protests of the very occupants whose safety is in his charge, cannot, at this stage, be treated as being in the same position as an ordinary residential tenant who has no occasion to notice or act upon danger," it observed.
However, the Patiala House Court clarified that it was not recording any final finding on whether the offence under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, was ultimately made out against Tyagi.
The FIR, registered at South Campus Police Station on September 6 under Sections 105, 290 and 125(a) of the BNS, was initially against unknown accused.
The investigation subsequently led to the arrest of building owners Urmila Gupta, Hari Ram Gupta, and Mahesh Gupta alias Sanjay, as well as contractor Sanoj and PG operator Sudhanshu Lovenish Kumar.
Tyagi had approached the court claiming that he was an advocate practising at Patiala House Courts, had no criminal antecedents and was merely an investor in the PG business run by his friend Lovenish Kumar.
He contended that he was neither the building's owner nor had any control or decision-making authority over its structure. He also argued that the rent agreement relied upon by him was in Lovenish Kumar’s name and that the lease had expired on August 30.
The prosecution, opposing the plea, submitted that Tyagi was not merely an investor but a co-lessee and business partner of Lovenish Kumar and that both were jointly running PG accommodations under the name "Hostel Daze" at multiple buildings in Satya Niketan.
During the hearing, the probe agency produced another rent agreement dated September 6, 2025, executed between owner Urmila Gupta and Tyagi for the second and third floors of Building No. 14.
In its order, the court recorded that the two agreements were executed on the same day, contained substantially identical terms, and were attested by the same notary.
It further said that Tyagi had signed Lovenish Kumar’s agreement as a witness and vice versa.
"These contemporaneous documents, far from supporting the narrative of a mere friendly investment, prima facie indicate that Sudhanshu and the present applicant were jointly involved in taking the building on rent and in running it as a paying-guest facility," the court said.
It further observed that the suppression of Tyagi’s own rent agreement "amounts to an attempt to mislead this Court as to the true nature of the applicant’s connection with the premises".
The court also relied on the statement of the injured paying guest, Nitish Chib, who stated that he had taken accommodation from Tyagi and Lovenish Kumar and paid Rs 14,500 per month.
According to the statement, construction work had been underway in the basement for around 10 to 12 days, and iron rods were being cut on the ground floor.
When students raised objections over the construction noise, Tyagi and Lovenish Kumar told them that renovation was underway and that the PG would be extended to the basement.
The witness also claimed that the students were threatened with eviction when they objected to the construction.
The court said these statements were not being treated as conclusive proof of guilt but were relevant to determine whether Tyagi’s claim of having no knowledge of the construction and of playing only a financial role could be accepted at the anticipatory bail stage.
It observed that the precise structural cause of the collapse was still under expert examination, but said the material before it indicated that the building was old, had additional floors, and that construction work was underway before the collapse.
"It is sufficient for present purposes that the question is a live one, and that it cannot be shut out by the applicant’s self-serving description of himself as a mere investor," the court said while dealing with the invocation of Section 105 BNS.
On the question of custodial interrogation, the court said the investigation was at a nascent stage and that several aspects, including the extent of the partnership between Tyagi and Lovenish Kumar, the flow of rent collected from students, their knowledge or consent regarding the structural work and their interaction with the contractor and building owners, required further investigation.
It also rejected the argument that the absence of arrests of municipal or civic officials entitled Tyagi to anticipatory bail, saying that each accused had to be considered on the material available against him.
"The law does not create a separate standard of anticipatory bail for members of the legal profession," the court observed.
The Satya Niketan building collapse had claimed seven lives, with several other occupants sustaining injuries. The incident had prompted proceedings before the Delhi High Court over alleged regulatory and municipal lapses, while the criminal investigation focused on the role of the building owners, contractor, and persons associated with the PG's operation.
The Patiala House Court ultimately held that Tyagi’s case was not fit for grant of anticipatory bail and dismissed his application. It clarified that the observations were confined to the bail proceedings and would not prejudice the applicant at the stage of investigation, framing of charges or trial.
The court also said that any arrest should be made only in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines and that arrest should not be made as a matter of course but only when required for a fair and effective investigation.