Goa nightclub fire: 'We are not responsible', says Luthra brothers to Delhi HC

Delhi’s Rohini Court has denied immediate interim relief to Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of Goa’s ‘Birch by Romeo Lane’ nightclub where a fire killed at least 25 people. The court has sought the prosecution’s reply to their anticipatory bail pleas. The hearing is scheduled for Thursday (December 11). The matter was heard on Wednesday (December 10), by Additional Sessions Judge Vandana of Rohini Courts. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra along with Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir appeared for the Luthra's.

Senior advocate Abhinav Mukerji appeared for the State, along with Surjendu Sankar Das, Standing Counsel for Goa. Mukherji pointed out that the bail pleas were served only this morning and sought that the matter be taken up on Friday, saying the prosecution would file a status report by then. He argued the applicants were fugitives and their pleas not maintainable. Luthra countered that the sole relief he sought was to return to India and move the proper courts in Goa.

He acknowledged the incident was tragic and had claimed lives, but said his concern was the “witch-hunting” of the accused. He pointed out that Saurabh Luthra, 40, suffers from medical conditions including hypertension and epilepsy, and argued that the Luthras were merely licensees, not owners of the nightclub. Noting that LOCs have been issued against them, the senior counsel said: “I just want to return and pursue my legal remedies. My learned friend for the State cannot possibly oppose that.” He argued that once the prosecution has been served, it cannot seek extra time to file a status report. Luthra said the State may file its response, but the court still retains the power to grant interim anticipatory bail. “Sitting in Delhi, can I be said to have known what was happening that evening in Goa?” he asked.

Supporting the submissions, Mir added that the Luthra's cannot—“by any stretch of imagination”—be held liable, even vicariously. Mir argued that the Luthra brothers did not own the nightclub , they were not the owners. It was run by operational managers who are already in custody and that other Luthra ventures had been “bulldozed” without notice. He said the Luthra's would cooperate with the investigation and sought limited protection to return and face the law. He stressed that criminal intent cannot automatically extend to corporate management.

The court questioned the maintainability of transit anticipatory bail as the Luthra's were in Thailand, to which Mir replied they are Delhi residents and willing to stay under court jurisdiction until the State files a status report. Mukherji opposed interim protection, citing non-bailable warrants from Goa. The court refused to grant interim relief, listing the matter for tomorrow.