Delhi Court Denies Bail to Lawyer in Building Collapse Case

A Delhi court has denied anticipatory bail to Shubham Tyagi, a lawyer implicated in the tragic collapse of a paying-guest building in Satya Niketan that claimed seven lives. The ruling was issued by Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler at the Patiala House Courts on Thursday, following a plea submitted by Tyagi, who is one of the operators of the affected property.

The court's decision stemmed from findings that Tyagi had concealed a rental agreement indicating his status as a lessee of the building. The judge emphasized that individuals renting out floors for student accommodation bear a significant responsibility for the safety and condition of the premises. The court noted that if construction activities are ongoing and complaints arise from occupants, the expected course of action would be to notify the property owner or relevant authorities, rather than resorting to threats of eviction.

The incident occurred on September 6, when the building, operated as a hostel named "Hostel Daze," collapsed, resulting in the deaths of five students and two laborers. Tyagi, who is registered with the Bar Council of Delhi, claimed he was merely an investor in the PG business run by his associate, Sudhanshu Lovenish Kumar, and denied having any ownership or knowledge of the building's structural issues. However, the prosecution presented a second rental agreement that identified Tyagi as the lessee of the second and third floors, raising questions about his claims.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court observed that both rental agreements were notarized by the same individual and generated within a short time frame, indicating a coordinated effort between Tyagi and Kumar. The court concluded that this pattern suggested a joint venture rather than a simple tenancy, and Tyagi's failure to disclose his own agreement constituted a breach of the expected transparency for anticipatory bail applicants. Additionally, testimony from an injured resident, Nitish Chib, corroborated that both Tyagi and Kumar collected rent and were aware of ongoing construction work, threatening residents with eviction when they raised concerns.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate case, highlighting the legal responsibilities of property operators in ensuring tenant safety. The court's decision serves as a warning to others in similar positions about the potential legal consequences of negligence. Moving forward, the case will continue to unfold as further hearings are scheduled, and the legal ramifications for those involved are assessed.