The Delhi court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Shubham Tyagi, who has been accused in the case in which a building collapsed at Satya Niketan, killing 7 people.
Considering the circumstances of the case, especially Tyagi’s alleged role in running the PG accommodation, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Laler said that further questioning of him was necessary.
The court took serious note of the fact that Thyagi had not mentioned the rental agreement for the building’s second and third floors in his anticipatory bail petition. During the hearing, the police submitted that agreement to the court. In it, Thyagi was named as the tenant. Similarly, a separate rental agreement for the ground floor and first floor of the building was in the name of another accused, Sudhanshu.
The court pointed out that both of these agreements were executed on the same day, within a few minutes of each other, through the same stamp vendor account. It also noted that Thyagi and Sudhanshu had signed as witnesses for each other in the agreements between them.
The judge stated that this practice indicated the possibility that the two were running the Fiji accommodation business together, rather than Sudhanshu operating it alone.
The injured student in this incident, Nitish Chip, reportedly told investigating officers that he had rented a room from the two of them for Rs. 14,500 per month. He also said that students had complained about construction work on the ground floor and the cutting of iron rods.
According to the student’s statement on this matter, the accused had said that renovation work was under way in the building and that the PG accommodation would also be expanded to the basement. They are also said to have threatened that if complaints were continued, they would be evicted from the hostel.
On behalf of Tyagi, it was argued that he was merely an advocate registered with the Delhi Bar Council and a friend who had invested money in Sudhanshu’s business. He stated that he had no ownership of the building or control over the construction work. However, the prosecution rejected this argument.
The court stated that it was necessary to remand Tyagi to police custody to question him along with the co-accused, including Sudhanshu, to trace the financial transactions of the PG business, and to find out what he knew about the construction work carried out in the building.
Furthermore, the court said that since the investigation is still at an early stage, bail cannot be granted at this stage.
Meanwhile, the building owner Hariram (81) and his wife Urmila (75) were sent to judicial custody. Their son Mahesh (52) was placed in police custody.
Police are also investigating whether the structural integrity of the old five-storey building was affected because additional floors were constructed on the building for renting out.
