A city court on Thursday rejected the transit anticipatory bail pleas of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub in Goa, where a massive fire last week killed 25 people, saying allegations against them were prima facie “grave and serious”. Additional Sessions Judge Vandana also said the “conduct” of the accused persons was another ground for dismissing the bail pleas.
The court was hearing two bail pleas by the accused persons seeking four weeks of transit anticipatory bail so that they would not be immediately arrested after their return to Delhi from Thailand.
“The nature of offence, prima facie, is grave and serious in nature where 25 people have lost their lives,” the court said.
Given the “conduct” of the applicants and the nature of the allegations levelled against them, the court was not inclined to grant them the relief, the judge said. She said the documents regarding the flight taken by the accused persons showed that the tickets to Phuket were booked on December 7 at 1.17 am and the flight departed at 5.20 am the same day.
This fact was “concealed” and their counsel instead stated that they had left for Thailand before the massive fire, the judge said. “The documents filed along with the application, prima facie, do not support the averments made therein as, according to documents, the licence agreement, trade licence and lease deed have already expired,” the court said.
It also trashed the medical grounds, including a seizure disorder and hypertension, cited for getting the interim relief by Gaurav Luthra.
“Counsel for the applicant has himself refuted the above, stating that the medical condition of the applicant is not that he cannot move to another country or pursue his business. “Otherwise also, the medical documents are old documents which do not reflect any serious medical conditions, which may entitle the applicant to the (interim) relief,” the court said.
It said there was no explanation why the Luthras failed to approach the competent court having territorial jurisdiction in Goa. Rejecting the argument about there being an “immediate threat” to their lives, the court said, “The action taken by the investigating authority or by the court, as per law, cannot be said to be an apprehension of threat to life.”
It said even the 2023 Supreme Court verdict cited by Gaurav Luthra’s counsel did not support his case for bail, as the judgment clearly said that the power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances.
The court said the grounds for relief “miserably failed” to show that denial of transit anticipatory bail or interim protection enabling the accused persons to appear before a court of competent jurisdiction would cause them “irremediable and irreversible prejudice”.
It said, “Without expressing any opinion on the merits or veracity of the allegations, this court finds no ground to entertain the present application(s) seeking transit anticipatory bail and to suspend the lookout notice (LOC).”
The court also clarified that the Luthra brothers were at liberty to approach the competent court having jurisdiction over the matter for seeking appropriate relief, in accordance with the law.
During the proceedings, counsel for the state of Goa opposed the pleas, saying, “They left, they concealed, and they are now seeking leniency.” He said the Luthra brothers had left Goa immediately after the fire incident and had been “evading the legal process.”
He added that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief and cannot be granted to those who have “created obstacles in the execution of warrants or concealed themselves”. The counsel submitted that serious allegations were pending, including non-bailable warrants. “This is not a case for granting the privilege of anticipatory bail. The gravity of the offence and the conduct of the applicants disentitle them from any protection,” he argued.
