Delhi’s Rohini District court on Thursday rejected the transit anticipatory bail pleas of Gaurav and Saurav Luthra. The Luthra brothers, Gaurav and Saurabh, are the owners of Goa’s Birch by Romeo Lane restaurant-cum-club, where a devastating fire broke out on December 6, claiming 25 lives.
Delhi’s Rohini District court on Thursday rejected the transit anticipatory bail pleas of Gaurav and Saurav Luthra after noting the seriousness of the allegations and their conduct.
The Luthra brothers, Gaurav and Saurabh, are the owners of Goa’s Birch by Romeo Lane restaurant-cum-club, where a devastating fire broke out on December 6, claiming 25 lives. The brothers fled to Thailand shortly after the incident, while emergency teams were still battling the blaze.They were detained in Phuket, Thailand, on December 11 (Thursday), and the process for their deportation to India has been initiated.
An FIR has been lodged at the Police Station Anjuna, Goa, post the fire incident that occurred in the intervening night of December 6 and 7.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vandana rejected the pleas of Gaurav and Saurav Luthra after hearing the submissions of counsel for the Goa Police and senior advocate for the accused persons.
“The nature of offence, prima facie, is grave and serious in nature where 25 people have lost their lives,” ASJ Vandana said in the order.
The court further said that, in view of the grave and serious nature of the applicants’ conduct and the allegations levelled against them, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in their favour.
“In view of the aforesaid reasons, and without expressing any opinion on the merits or veracity of the allegations, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present application seeking Transit Anticipatory Bail and to suspend the LOC,” ASJ Vandana ordered on December 11.
While deciding the pleas, the court rejected the contention of senior counsel Tanvir Ahmed Mir that there is a threat to the life of the accused persons.
“The applicant has stated that there is an immediate threat to his life. However, the applicant has failed to show the basis of any such apprehension,” the court said.
It also said that the action taken by the investigating authority or by the court, as per law, can’t be said to be an apprehension of a threat to life.
The court said that the applicants are admittedly at Phuket (Thailand), but it remained unexplained as to why they have not approached the competent Court that has jurisdiction in Goa.
The court also noted the Goa Police’s submissions that the accused persons left the country within hours of the incident. “The documents qua the flight taken by the applicant show that the ticket was booked on 07.12.2025 at 1.17 a.m. and the flight departed at 5.20 a.m. on 07.12.2025, though the applicant has concealed the fact, stating that he left for Phuket (Thailand) on 06.12.2025, prior to the incident,” the court observed in the order.
The court also refused to grant the interim relief because the accused is suffering from seizure disorder and hypertension.
The court noted the submissions of senior Counsel for the applicant, who himself refuted the claim that the applicant’s medical condition precludes him from moving to another country or pursuing his business.
“Otherwise also, the medical documents are old documents, which do not reflect any serious medical condition, which may entitle the applicant to the relief prayed by him,” the court noted.
Senior advocate Abhinav Mukherjee and standing counsel Surjendu Shankar Das appeared for the State of Goa. Special Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava and Additional Public Prosecutor Dr Sarita Rani appeared for Delhi State.
The Goa Police filed a reply and opposed the pleas of the accused. They opposed the bail plea, and it was said that Gaurav Luthra, Saurav Luthra and Ajay Gupta are signatories. The Panchayat licence previously issued has expired and wasn’t renewed.
Goa Police stated that there is no cooperation from Saurav and Gaurav Luthra, thereby disentitling them from extraordinary protection by this court.
“They have no business in Thailand. The family members did not disclose their whereabouts to avoid arrest. They left the country on December 7. Though they said that they had left on the night of December 6,” Goa Police said.
Goa police said that Saurav and Gaurav Luthra misled the court, misled the authorities and left the country, despite the fact that 25 people died in the incident.
Medical grounds are bogus as the doctor did not see the patient. Still, they are saying that they are innocent, the Goa Police contended.
“You (Luthras) are running the entire operation without a licence. There was only a narrow entry and exit. 25 people died in the incident. The extraordinary protection cannot be granted to applicants in the present case,” the Goa Police added.
“The application can be filed in Goa. Why did you (Luthras) come here?” SPP Atul Shrivastava submitted. The accused’s intention was not to cooperate as they booked the air tickets at 1.17 AM on December 7, immediately after the incident and left the country, SPP Shrivastava said.
Senior advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, counsel for the accused, submitted that, according to the FIR, the incident was due to negligence and was not homicidal. There were people all around social media, and there was a threat to the applicant’s life.
Two restaurants have been bulldozed without notice, Senior Advocate Mir Submitted. I am before the court to protect life. A man before the court is not an absconder, Mir said.
The perception of innocence is there under the law. The accused are not convicts; they are ready to join the investigation, Senior Advocate Mir added.
He further said that no notice to join the investigation was given. A warrant was issued straight away, Mir Said.
The managers manage restaurants all over India; the men sitting in Delhi cannot be present everywhere, Senior advocate Mir argued. Luthras had an event to attend in Phuket, therefore booked a ticket, he said.
The property of the Accused is being bulldozed, there is sealing, we are seeking protection of life and liberty, Mir said. The men who are ready to join the investigation, the senior advocate said. Give them a helping hand, he added.
Luthras has work in Phuket; I am seeking to employ Indian nationals there. Do I deserve to be lynched? Senior advocate argued. The properties were demolished after the incident; however, the show cause was issued before that, Mir said.
To seek protection, I need to show that there is an immediate threat to my life, senior advocate Mir Said. Luthras are invoking the jurisdiction of the court where I live, Mir added. This court is my first protector, Mir said.
Arrest cannot be made in a rage; it can’t be made in vengeance, Mir said. Police have not stated why they require custody of the accused, as 90 per cent of the investigation is complete in my absence, Mir added.
(ANI)
