New Delhi: Advocate and PG operator Shubham Tyagi, who claimed that the construction work blamed for the Satya Niketan building collapse was not taking
place in his portion of the building, was denied anticipatory bail by the Patiala House Court on Thursday. The court dismissed Tyagi's anticipatory bail plea, observing that his rent agreement had not been disclosed in the application and that the investigation was still at an initial stage. The September 6 building collapse left seven people dead and several others injured. Five accused have been arrested so far. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler said further investigation was required into Tyagi's knowledge of the construction work, his consent and his financial and operational role in the PG business. "In view of the circumstances, there is a need for further investigation into knowledge, consent and the financial/operational role of the applicant. This is not a fit case for grant of Anticipatory bail," the court said.
Tyagi Said Construction Was Not In His Portion
During the hearing, Tyagi's side maintained that the construction work linked to the collapse was being carried out in another part of the building and not in the portion operated by him.
However, the prosecution argued that Tyagi was not merely an investor but a co-lessee and business partner of co-accused Sudhanshu.
Additional Public Prosecutor Mukul Kumar told the court that Tyagi and Sudhanshu jointly ran a paying guest facility under the name "Hotel / Hostel Daze".
According to the prosecution, Building No. 14 was taken on rent for Rs 1.05 lakh per month from Urmila Gupta.
The prosecution further said that two separate rent agreements were executed on September 6, 2025, for the same period from September 1, 2025, to August 30, 2026. One agreement was in Sudhanshu's name for the upper ground and first floors, while the other was in Tyagi's name for the second and third floors.
The prosecution alleged that Tyagi submitted only Sudhanshu's rent agreement with his bail application and did not disclose his own agreement.
Police Seek Custodial Interrogation
The prosecution also alleged that Tyagi, despite being an advocate, was operating a commercial PG facility in a residential and old building without the required permissions.
It further claimed that the PG continued to operate while construction and alteration work was being carried out in the basement and on the ground floor.
The prosecution argued that Tyagi's custodial interrogation was necessary to question him about the PG business, trace its money trail and determine what he knew about the construction work.
Police also said his custody was required to confront him with the statements of co-accused and to investigate whether there was any knowledge or consent regarding the structural work.
The prosecution further raised concerns about possible tampering with evidence and influencing surviving occupants.
The court ultimately rejected Tyagi's anticipatory bail plea.
