PANAJI
The Delhi court came down heavily on Birch by Romeo Lane owners Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra while dismissing their application for transit anticipatory bail, holding that their conduct, contradictions in their claims, and the gravity of the offence weighed against them.
Additional Sessions Judge-2 (North) Vandana of the Rohini Courts refused to grant the relief and declined to suspend the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the duo, noting that 25 people had died in the fire, making the case “grave and serious”.
“The applicant says there is an immediate threat to his life. However, the applicant has failed to show the basis of any such apprehension. The action taken by the investigating authority or by the Court, as per law, can’t be said to be an apprehension of threat to life. The nature of the offense, prima facie, is grave and serious in nature where 25 people have lost their lives,” the Court noted in its nine-page order.
The court also dismissed health-related arguments stating that while one of the two applicants said he suffers from seizure disorder and hypertension, his counsel has himself refused it.
“The counsel stated that the medical condition of the applicant is not that he can move to another country or pursue his business. Otherwise also, the medical documents are old documents, which does not reflect any serious medical condition, which may entitle the applicant to the relief prayed by him,” the Court observed.
The court further mentioned that the Luthra brothers are “admittedly at present in Phuket (Thailand)” and found it unexplained why they had not approached the competent court in Goa, where the offence took place.
“The conduct of the applicant… this Court finds no ground to entertain the present application seeking transit anticipatory bail and to suspend the LOC,” the order stated.
Earlier during the arguments, the State argued that the brothers had made false averments regarding their departure from India. “Tickets were booked on December 7 at 1.17 am. Therefore, after having knowledge of the incident, the applicant fled immediately on the next morning,” the prosecution submitted.
The State also said that no fire permission was taken, and the accused failed to give a single reason as to why they are unable to move for anticipatory bail in Goa, though they were present in Goa on the day of the incident.
Counsel for the applicants argued that Saurabh and Gaurav had travelled to Thailand for a business meeting in connection with professional engagements. He submitted that a “third-party performer” was responsible for the event on December 6 and had brought her own equipment and staff and did not use any flammable material.
Holding that the nature of the allegations and the applicants’ conduct justified no relief, the court dismissed the plea. However, the Judge clarified that the applicant shall be at liberty to approach the competent court having jurisdiction over the matter for seeking appropriate relief, in accordance with the law.
