Malviya Nagar blaze: Delhi court permits police to quiz hotel owner in custody for four days

A Delhi court on Thursday granted four days of police custody to Lavkesh Bajaj, owner of the Flourish Stay B&B in Malviya Nagar, in connection with the devastating fire that killed 21 people and injured several others.

Judicial Magistrate Bhanu Pratap Singh observed that Bajaj's arrest was "lawful and justified" and allowed Delhi Police to interrogate him in custody as part of the ongoing investigation into the blaze that broke out on Wednesday.

The fire at the hotel, which was allegedly operating without a fire No Objection Certificate (NOC) in a congested lane, claimed the lives of nine Indian nationals and 12 foreign nationals. Relatives of several victims are undergoing treatment at nearby hospitals.

Rejecting arguments challenging the validity of the arrest, the court said, “...Considering the serious allegations against the accused of committing an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, this court is of the view that the arrest of accused Lavkesh Bajaj is lawful and justified.”

During the hearing, the prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to verify the identities and roles of workers, employees and other individuals involved in operating the hotel. Police also informed the court that they needed to trace and apprehend accountant Jay Mishra and hotel manager Rakesh, whose roles have come under scrutiny during the preliminary investigation.

The prosecution further submitted that investigators needed to recover and examine documents related to the ownership and functioning of the hotel, including electricity bills, guest registers, booking records, online reservation details, financial records and bank account information. Police also said Bajaj would need to be confronted with witnesses as well as documentary and electronic evidence collected during the probe.

According to the prosecution, investigators must also verify information disclosed by the accused and identify other persons involved in the construction, management and operation of the premises.

Bajaj’s lawyers, Nitin Ahlawat and Preeti Yadav, opposed the request for police custody, arguing that no recovery was required from the accused and that investigators already possessed the necessary information.

However, the magistrate observed that the investigation was still at an early stage and said custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover relevant facts and examine possible violations of mandatory safety regulations.

“Considering that the investigation is at an initial stage, this court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary for the discovery of relevant facts leading to the incident and to verify the alleged lapses in compliance with mandatory laws,” the order stated.

The court also noted that police custody was required to trace individuals whose involvement had emerged during the investigation and to recover documents, electronic devices and digital evidence linked to the case.

While allowing the police custody plea, the court permitted Bajaj’s lawyers to meet him daily between 5 pm and 6 pm at the police station.

Delhi Police have registered a case under Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 326(g) (mischief by fire), 324(5) (wrongful damage to property), 125(a) (negligent act endangering human life), 125(b) (grievous hurt by negligence) and 287 (negligent conduct with respect to fire) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

In the grounds of arrest, police stated that preliminary findings suggest negligence and a failure to ensure adequate safety measures for occupants of the premises. Investigators said Bajaj’s custodial interrogation was necessary for recovering and verifying documents, identifying other responsible individuals and establishing the full circumstances surrounding the incident.

Police also cited concerns that, if released, the accused could potentially tamper with evidence or influence witnesses connected to the case, making his arrest necessary for a fair and effective investigation.