A Delhi court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to advocate Shubham Tyagi, who is facing allegations in connection with the collapse of a paying-guest accommodation at Satya Niketan in Delhi. The building collapse on September 6 resulted in the deaths of seven people, including five students and two labourers.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts dismissed Tyagi’s request for protection from arrest.
Court Questions Tyagi’s Role in the PG Property
The prosecution alleged that Tyagi was involved in operating the PG accommodation. During the proceedings, the court considered documents relating to the tenancy of the premises.
Tyagi had maintained that he was only an investor in the PG business operated by his friend Sudhanshu Lovenish Kumar. According to his version, he neither owned nor controlled the premises and was not aware of any structural problems with the building.
The defence relied on a rent agreement under which Kumar was shown as the lessee.
However, the prosecution placed another rent agreement before the court. That document showed Tyagi as the lessee of the second and third floors of the same building.
Also Read: Satya Niketan PG Collapse: Supreme Court Seeks Wider Checks on Building Law Violations
Court Finds Non-Disclosure of Rent Agreement Important
The court took note of the similarities between the two rent agreements. Both documents had been notarised by the same notary and were created within minutes of each other using the same e-stamp account.
The court also noted that Tyagi and Kumar had acted as witnesses for each other’s agreements.
According to the court, these circumstances indicated that the arrangement appeared more consistent with a joint business venture than with Tyagi having no tenancy-related role in the property.
The court further held that Tyagi’s failure to disclose his own rent agreement was relevant while considering his request for anticipatory bail.
PG Operators Have Responsibility Towards Occupants
The court also examined the responsibilities of a person who rents out a building for use as a PG accommodation.
It observed that anyone operating a property as a paying-guest facility has a responsibility to remain aware of the condition and safety of the premises.
Also Read: India Needs a Law to Protect Peaceful Protests, Not Suppress Dissent
The court particularly considered allegations that construction and iron-cutting work was taking place inside the building while residents were occupying it.
According to the prosecution case, occupants had raised objections about the work. The court observed that, in such circumstances, the operator should have raised the issue with the property owner and, if necessary, approached the relevant authorities.
Resident’s Statement Considered by Court
The court also referred to the statement of injured resident Nitish Chib.
According to his statement, both accused persons were involved in collecting rent from occupants. He also alleged that they knew about construction and iron-cutting activities being carried out in the basement and ground-floor areas.
The resident further alleged that occupants who objected to the work were threatened with eviction.
These allegations were among the circumstances considered by the court while deciding the anticipatory bail application.
Seven People Died in Satya Niketan Collapse
The incident took place at a building in Satya Niketan Market that was being operated as a hostel under the name “Hostel Daze.”
The structure collapsed on September 6, killing seven people. The deceased included five students and two labourers.
The case has consequently raised questions regarding the safety of buildings being used as PG accommodations and the responsibility of persons operating such properties.
Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail
After examining the material placed before it, the Patiala House Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to Shubham Tyagi.
The court’s observations focused, among other things, on the undisclosed rent agreement, the apparent connection between the two tenancy documents, allegations regarding construction activity and the responsibility of PG operators towards residents.
The order does not establish guilt at this stage. The allegations against the accused will be tested during the further course of the legal proceedings.
The matter is part of the investigation into the Satya Niketan building collapse and the circumstances that allegedly preceded the tragedy.