Court denies anticipatory bail to Satya Niketan PG operator

A Delhi court on Thursday denied to grant anticipatory bail to Shubham Tyagi, an operator of the paying guest (PG) accommodation that collapse in Satya Niketan, observing that he could not, at this stage, be treated as a “mere investor” in the business

A Delhi court on Thursday denied to grant anticipatory bail to Shubham Tyagi, an operator of the paying guest (PG) accommodation that collapse in Satya Niketan, observing that he could not, at this stage, be treated as a “mere investor” in the business.

Shubham Tyagi has been absconding since the collapse on September 6 that killed seven people. (Vipin Kumar/Hindustan Times)

Tyagi has been absconding since the collapse on September 6 that killed seven people, including five students. While his business partner and co-accused, Sudhanshu Loveneesh Kumar, was arrested on Wednesday.

The order was passed by additional sessions judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of Patiala House Court, who observed that the investigation had brought on record material indicating Tyagi’s direct association with the PG facility, including a rent agreement showing that “he was himself a lessee of the second and third floors of the building”.

The court noted that “while Tyagi had relied upon a rent agreement executed in favour of his friend and co-accused Sudhanshu... the prosecution produced a second agreement, also dated September 6, 2025, showing Tyagi as the lessee of two other floors of the same building”.

The court also took strong exception to Tyagi not disclosing the said rent agreement in his bail application, calling it an “attempt to mislead this Court as to the true nature of the applicant’s connection with the premises”.

“An applicant who seeks the extraordinary discretionary protection of anticipatory bail is under a duty of candour,” the judge observed, adding that the suppressed document “weighs heavily against the grant of the relief”.

According to the prosecution, represented by additional prosecutor Mukul Kumar, Tyagi and Sudhanshu were business partners who jointly operated PG accommodations under the name “Hostel Daze” at three buildings in Satya Niketan.

The prosecutor’s reply said, “The two agreements for building number 14 were executed on the same day and covered the same period, with each agreement carrying a monthly rent of ₹52,500”.

The court noted that the two agreements were attested by the same notary and that their e-stamp papers were generated within minutes of each other.

“Tyagi had signed Sudhanshu’s agreement as a witness, while Sudhanshu had signed Tyagi’s agreement as a witness,” the court noted.

Statement of injured paying guest

The prosecution primarily relied on the statement of an injured paying guest Nitish Chib, who allegedly told investigators that he had taken accommodation from both Tyagi and Sudhanshu for ₹14,500 a month.

Chib allegedly told investigators that “construction work had been continuing in the basement for around 10-12 days before the collapse”.

The prosecutor said, “When he and other students complained about construction noise and the cutting of iron rods on the ground floor, the two accused allegedly told them that renovation was underway and that the PG would eventually be extended to the basement”.

The prosecution said that students were allegedly “threatened with having to vacate the premises when they objected”.

The court said these statements were not being treated as conclusive proof of guilt but were “relevant in assessing Tyagi’s claim that he had no operational role or knowledge of the construction”.

“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,” the court underlined.

The judge said whether the circumstances ultimately established the “knowledge” required for an offence under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) would have to be decided later.

The court also rejected the argument that Tyagi could not have known about basement construction because the basement and ground floor had separate access and were in the owners’ possession.

It said, “The argument could be raised at trial but did not displace Chib’s specific statement that both PG operators were informed about the construction and responded by describing it as renovation and a proposed extension”.

The court further noted that the building was old, additional floors had been constructed over the years and structural work was underway when the collapse occurred. It said, “Neither Tyagi nor his business partner was shown to have complained to municipal or police authorities or shifted the occupants despite their protests”.

The prosecution sought Tyagi’s custodial interrogation to confront him with the co-accused persons, trace the PG business’s money trail and determine his knowledge and consent regarding the structural work. Police also cited the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing surviving occupants.