Delhi Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Advocate In Satya Niketan Building Collapse Case, Flags Concealed Rent Agreement

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh passed the order on September 10, 2026, in FIR No. 153/2026 registered at South Campus Police Station under Sections 105, 290 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court observed that Tyagi’s role required further investigation, particularly in relation to his knowledge of the construction work, his involvement in operating the paying guest accommodation and the circumstances surrounding the building collapse.

A significant factor considered by the Court was the non-disclosure of a rent agreement executed in favour of Tyagi for the second and third floors of the collapsed building.

The Court noted that the application relied upon a rent agreement executed in favour of co-accused Sudhanshu Lovenish Kumar for the upper ground and first floors. However, a separate agreement in favour of Tyagi, covering the second and third floors of the same building, had not been disclosed.

Both agreements were executed on September 6, 2025, for the period from September 1, 2025, to August 30, 2026. The Court noted that they contained substantially identical wording and were attested by the same Notary Public.

The Court observed: “The non-disclosure of a document which places the applicant himself as lessee of two floors of the collapsed building, executed on the same day as the document relied upon, is a circumstance which weighs heavily against the grant of the relief.” It further held that an applicant seeking anticipatory bail is under a duty of candour.

Tyagi had claimed that he was merely an investor in the paying guest business operated by his friend Sudhanshu. He also submitted that the construction work was being carried out by the building owners and that he had no knowledge of the basement excavation.

The investigating agency, however, alleged that Tyagi was a co-lessee and business partner in operating multiple paying guest accommodations under the name “Hotel / Hostel Daze” at Satya Niketan.

The Court observed that Tyagi’s own rent agreement showed that he was a lessee of two floors of the building, taken specifically for running a boys’ paying guest accommodation. It further noted the statement of injured paying guest Nitish Chib, who had stated that he took accommodation from Tyagi and Sudhanshu, paid rent to them and had informed both of them about the construction work.

The Court observed: “A person renting out floors of a building as a paying-guest house for students assumes a responsibility for the safety of the occupants.”

It held that a person operating a paying guest facility while structural work was underway, despite objections from occupants, could not at that stage be treated in the same manner as an ordinary residential tenant.

The Court referred to the statement of Nitish Chib, an injured student who was residing in the paying guest accommodation.

According to the statement, construction work had been continuing in the basement for around 10 to 12 days. When Chib complained about the noise, Tyagi and Sudhanshu allegedly told him that renovation was being carried out and that iron rods were being cut on the ground floor.

The statement further alleged that the accused told the students that the paying guest accommodation would be extended into the basement and threatened them with eviction when they raised objections.

The Court also considered the statement of plumber Jawahar Shah, who stated that labourers and masons were cutting iron rods on the ground floor around 12:30 p.m. on September 6, 2026. He stated that the building collapsed around 1:00 to 1:40 p.m.

The Court clarified that these statements were not being treated as conclusive proof at this stage but could be considered on a prima facie appraisal.

Section 105 BNS: Courts says Final finding not being returned

Tyagi’s counsel argued that the ingredients of Section 105 BNS, which corresponds to Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, were not made out.

The provision concerns culpable homicide not amounting to murder and requires intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. The Court observed that “knowledge” in this context is not a vague awareness of some remote risk.

However, it held that it was not required to determine at the anticipatory bail stage whether Section 105 BNS was ultimately made out against Tyagi.

The Court observed: “What this Court is required to examine is whether on the material as it presently stands, the invocation of Section 105 BNS is so inherently improbable, or the protection under Section 482 BNSS ought to be extended as a matter of course.”

The Court held that the material on record did not make the invocation of Section 105 BNS inherently improbable.

The investigating agency submitted that custodial interrogation of Tyagi was necessary to confront him with the co-accused, trace the money trail of the paying guest business and ascertain his knowledge and consent regarding the structural work.

It also submitted that the investigation was at an initial stage and that the offence was grave, as seven persons had lost their lives. The Court held that further investigation was required into Tyagi’s knowledge, consent and operational role in the paying guest business.

It observed that the investigation could not be said to have been exhausted merely by the production of the two lease deeds.

Tyagi had argued that the rent agreement had expired on August 30, 2026, and that no rent for September 2026 had been paid.

The Court held that this did not, by itself, wipe out his prior and continuing association with the premises as lessee and operator, or the statements of occupants who were still residing there on the date of the collapse. It observed that whether the occupation after August 30, 2026, was as a tenant holding over, licensee or otherwise was a matter of evidence.

The Court also considered Tyagi’s status as an advocate practising at Patiala House Courts, his clean antecedents and his roots in society. However, it held that these factors were not decisive when weighed against the gravity of the occurrence, the concealment of the rent agreement, the statement of the surviving paying guest and the nascent stage of investigation.

The Court observed: “The law does not create a separate standard of anticipatory bail for members of the legal profession.”

While dismissing the anticipatory bail application, the Court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the application and would not prejudice Tyagi at the stage of investigation, charge or trial. It further observed that any arrest must be effected in accordance with law and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court concerning the necessity and manner of arrest. “Arrest is not to be made as a matter of course, but only where it is required for the purposes of a fair and effective investigation,” the Court said.

The Court clarified that this observation did not amount to protection from arrest. The anticipatory bail application filed by Shubham Tyagi under Section 482 BNSS was accordingly dismissed.