India News | Satya Niketan Building Collapse Case: Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to PG Operator Shubham Tyagi
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. The Patiala House Court on Thursday denied anticipatory Bail to Advocate Shubham Tyagi, a PG Operator of the Satya Niketan Building that collapsed on September 6, claiming the lives of 7 people and injuring several.
New Delhi [India], September 11 (ANI): The Patiala House Court on Thursday denied anticipatory Bail to Advocate Shubham Tyagi, a PG Operator of the Satya Niketan Building that collapsed on September 6, claiming the lives of 7 people and injuring several.
The court noted that the rent agreement was suppressed in the bail application and the investigation is at an initial stage. Till date, 5 accused have been arrested in this case.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler dismissed the Anticipatory bail plea after considering the submissions of counsel and evidence against Tyagi, including the statement of an injured student.
The court said that 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.
While opposing the anticipatory bail application, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mukul Kumar submitted that the applicant is not a mere investor. He is a co-lessee and business partner of co-accused Sudhanshu.
It was further submitted that Sudhanshu and Shubham jointly ran paying-guest accommodations under the name “Hotel / Hostel Daze”. Building No. 14 was taken on a combined rent of Rs. 1,05,000 per month from Urmila Gupta.
The Prosecution further asserted that two separate rent agreements, both of September 6, 20225 and covering the same tenure (September 1, 2025 to August 30, 2026), were executed on the same day: one in favour of Sudhanshu for the upper ground and first floors, and the other in favour of the present applicant for the second and third floors of the very same building.
The APP also argued that the applicant annexed only Sudhanshu’s agreement and suppressed his own agreement in the bail application.
While opposing the bail application, the APP submitted that Shubham Tyagi, despite being an Advocate, was running a commercial paying-guest facility in a residential/old building without requisite permissions, and continued to do so even while construction/alteration was underway in the basement and on the ground floor.
It was also submitted that the Investigation is at the initial stage. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is stated to be necessary to confront co-accused, to trace the money trail of the PG business, to ascertain the extent of knowledge and consent regarding the structural work, and to prevent tampering with evidence and influencing of surviving occupants. (ANI)
(The above story is verified and authored by ANI staff, ANI is South Asia's leading multimedia news agency with over 100 bureaus in India, South Asia and across the globe. ANI brings the latest news on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Sports, Health, Fitness, Entertainment, & News. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)