The Patiala House Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by advocate Shubham Tyagi, who was booked in connection with the collapse of a multi-storeyed building at Satya Niketan Market, Moti Bagh-II, which claimed the lives of seven persons.
The application was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in an FIR registered at PS South Campus under Sections 105, 290 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The building collapsed on September 6, 2026, at around 1 PM, following which a PCR call was received and rescue operations were carried out by the Fire Brigade, NDRF, Civil Defence, District Crime Team and ambulance services.
The court noted that seven persons died in the incident, while two others sustained injuries and remained under treatment. The FIR was initially registered against an unknown person, following which the investigation led to the arrest of several persons, including the co-accused and alleged operators/occupants connected with the building. The applicant had approached the court apprehending arrest.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, contending that the lawyer was not merely a tenant or investor but a co-lessee and business partner of co-accused Sudhanshu Lovenish Kumar, and that both were jointly running paying-guest accommodation under the name “Hotel / Hostel Daze” at the building.
The prosecution further relied upon two lease agreements covering different portions of the building and alleged that the applicant had suppressed the existence of one of the agreements while portraying himself as a distant investor. It was also submitted that construction activity, including work involving the basement and ground floor, continued despite complaints and objections from occupants. The investigating agency argued that custodial interrogation was required to trace the money trail, understand the extent of the construction and prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The court noted that the applicant was an advocate with no criminal antecedents, but held that those circumstances could not be considered in isolation given the seriousness of the allegations and the circumstances surrounding the collapse. The court observed:
“
“A person who takes on an old multi-storied 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 construction and cutting of iron on the ground floor, is underway over the protests of the very occupants whose safety is at risk, cannot, at this stage, be treated as being in the same position as an ordinary residential tenant who has no occasion to notice or act upon danger.”
The court also took note of the allegation that the building was old and that additional floors had been raised over the years, while construction activity was allegedly being undertaken at the ground and basement levels. The court observed that these circumstances required further investigation.
On the issue of custodial interrogation, the court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted merely because the applicant had no criminal antecedents. It noted that the investigation was at an initial stage and that the investigating agency had pointed to documentary material and statements connecting the applicant to the operation of the paying-guest facility.
The court ultimately concluded that the circumstances, including the collapse of a building used as a paying-guest facility resulting in seven deaths, the applicant’s own rent agreement for the second and third floors, the alleged partnership in running the PG, and the need for further investigation into the construction work, did not make the case fit for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of Shubham Tyagi was dismissed.