Delhi Hotel Fire: Court Grants Lovkesh Bajaj's 4-Day Police Custody

In its remand note, Delhi Police said custodial interrogation was required for multiple aspects of the investigation.

Investigators also said they were searching for absconding individuals, including accountant Jai Mishra and hotel manager Rakesh, whose names had surfaced during the probe.

Source : ANI

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

• Delhi court granted four-day police custody in hotel fire case.
• Police seek custody to identify workers, absconding manager, accountant.
• Investigators need hotel ownership, financial, guest records for probe.

A Delhi court on Thursday sent accused Lovkesh Bajaj to four days of police custody in connection with the deadly Malviya Nagar hotel fire case that claimed 21 lives.

The court also held that Bajaj’s arrest was legal and in accordance with the law.

According to Delhi Police, Bajaj was arrested on June 4 at 2:05 am. Police told the court that information regarding the arrest had already been communicated to his wife and that the grounds of arrest had also been provided in writing.

Delhi Police Seeks Custody For Wider Probe

In its remand note, Delhi Police said custodial interrogation was required for multiple aspects of the investigation.

Police told the court that all workers and employees associated with Hotel Flourish Stay needed to be identified and verified.

Investigators also said they were searching for absconding individuals, including accountant Jai Mishra and hotel manager Rakesh, whose names had surfaced during the probe.

Delhi Police further informed the court that documents linked to hotel ownership, electricity bills and records connected to the fire incident were yet to be seized.

Authorities also said they needed to take possession of guest registers, booking records, online booking details, financial records and bank account information related to the establishment.

Defence Questions Arrest Procedure

Delhi Police produced Lovkesh Bajaj before the Saket Court and sought four days of police remand.

During the hearing, Bajaj’s lawyer said the defence had not received a copy of the FIR.

Delhi Police responded that the FIR copy would be provided.

The defence also sought a copy of the grounds of arrest and argued that Delhi Police had not shared adequate details regarding the case.

Bajaj’s counsel opposed the arrest and cited previous Supreme Court judgments while challenging the police action.

Delhi Police, however, maintained before the court that all legal procedures had been followed during the arrest process.

Police also informed the court that Bajaj’s wife had already been informed about the arrest and that the arrest memo had been submitted before the court and shared with the accused’s lawyer.