PANAJI: The Rohini Court in Delhi today declined to grant interim protection to absconding Luthra brothers, Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, who had moved the court seeking transit anticipatory bail in connection with the deadly fire at their Arpora nightclub, Birch by Romeo Lane, which claimed 25 lives on December 6.
Represented by senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and Tanveer Ahmad Mir, the petitioners had sought protection from arrest to enable them to return to India and approach the competent courts in Goa. “I am seeking relief to come back to this country and approach the court in Goa without prejudice. It is unfortunate that lives were lost, but the harassment and vindictive targeting of my clients is my primary concern,” their counsel submitted.
The brothers, currently in Thailand and subject to an Interpol Blue Corner Notice, contended that they do not manage the day-to-day operations of the club. “The applicants and their co-partners operate from Delhi and do not oversee the daily functioning of the establishment. Management is handled by on-ground personnel and restaurant managers,” the plea stated.
According to police, the accused fled to Thailand within hours of the incident. Saurabh Luthra, however, asserted that his travel on December 6 was for bona fide business purposes. “The applicant travelled abroad for business meetings relating to professional engagements and potential restaurant ventures,” submitted Advocate Sidharth Luthra.
The plea also highlighted the demolition of the brothers’ second club in Goa, describing it as indicative of the vindictive actions of authorities. Bulldozer action was taken following directives from Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, as the property was deemed illegally constructed and non-compliant with safety norms.
During the hearing, counsel also cited medical contingencies, noting that Gaurav Luthra suffers from epilepsy and hypertension, and emphasized that the brothers are only licensees operating under valid permissions, while ownership vests in another entity.
The court, however, observed that the petitioners were not physically present within its territorial jurisdiction, questioning the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application. The State counsel opposed interim relief, citing the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) already issued by the Goa court and asserting that a detailed status report was required. The court directed the State to file its response and listed the matter for further hearing tomorrow.
