PANAJI
In another setback for the Luthra brothers, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Bombay High Court at Goa’s order cancelling the bail of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra and their business associate Ajay Gupta in the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub fire that killed 25 people in December 2025.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu dismissed their appeals and directed them to surrender within two weeks. It also urged the trial court to expedite framing of charges.
Police alleged the nightclub operated without valid safety clearances, adequate firefighting equipment and a trade licence. An indoor fire show was also conducted without adequate precautions. The Luthra brothers fled to Thailand after the incident and were later deported and arrested by Goa Police.
The Mapusa Additional Sessions Court granted Gupta bail on March 23 and the Luthra brothers bail on April 1. The State challenged the orders in the High Court, where Justice Neela Gokhale on August 19 allowed the appeal and cancelled their bail, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.
During Monday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gaurav Luthra, argued that the High Court had not adequately considered changed circumstances and had repeatedly relied on the gravity of the offence, despite the allegations being essentially of negligence without any direct intention to cause death.
“You run a restaurant, you carry out this business without taking minimum precautions,” the Bench remarked.
Singhvi said the High Court had conducted a mini-trial while cancelling bail. He argued that the cause of the fire remained unknown, the State’s case contained contradictions over whether cold pyro caused the fire, and the flight-risk allegation was unfounded as his hotel and return ticket had been disclosed.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Gupta, adopted Singhvi’s submissions but sought to distinguish Gupta’s role. He said Gupta was a “sleeping partner” with a 10 per cent share who had no role in management or day-to-day operations, while the Luthras were designated partners.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Saurabh Luthra, argued that cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) was neither appellate nor revisional and the High Court could not reassess the trial court’s discretion. He also argued that Section 304 Part II did not apply, saying, “There is no act of mine which has caused death.”
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the cancellation of bail.
