MAPUSA
In a significant setback to the owners of the controversial Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, the Mapusa Additional Sessions Court on Thursday rejected the bail applications of Gaurav and Saurabh Luthra in connection with the December 6, 2025 fire tragedy that claimed 25 lives.
The order was pronounced amid presence of relatives of both the accused and the victims in the courtroom.
Counsel for the Luthra brothers, Adv Parag Rao, said the defence would study the detailed order before deciding the next legal step.
“There are options to move the High Court. We will take instructions from our clients,” Rao told reporters outside the court.
Adv Vishnu Joshi, representing families of the victims, welcomed the decision.
“The bail of the accused has been rejected. The truth has prevailed. They should get maximum punishment,” he said.
During arguments, the prosecution strongly opposed the bail pleas, contending that the Luthra brothers fled India soon after the blaze erupted.
According to the State, the brothers booked a flight to Thailand in the early hours while rescue operations were still underway, indicating an intention to evade investigation and arrest.
The prosecution further submitted that the accused had failed to cooperate fully with the investigation and had not responded promptly to warrants and summons.
Citing charges including culpable homicide not amounting to murder, negligent conduct with respect to fire, and endangering life, the State argued that the gravity of the offences weighed heavily against grant of bail.
Investigators also maintained that the nightclub was operating without valid licences and in violation of fire safety norms, including an expired Panchayat trade licence.
The defence, however, disputed the applicability of certain charges, arguing that culpable homicide under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was not attracted in the case. Adv Rao contended that at most Section 125 – which carries a lesser, bailable punishment – would apply.
Defence lawyers further maintained that the brothers had not absconded but had travelled on a pre-planned business trip, and asserted that they were licensees rather than day-to-day operators of the establishment.
They argued that operational managers were responsible for running the club and that criminal liability could not be imposed on the Luthras on a vicarious basis. The detailed order is awaited.
