Goa Court Denies Bail to Luthra Brothers in Fatal Club Fire Case
The Mapusa court has firmly rejected bail applications for Gaurav and Saurabh Luthra, owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane club in Arpora, Goa, where a devastating fire claimed 25 lives. The court strongly criticized the brothers for their "complete disregard" for employee and patron safety, particularly highlighting their decision to travel to Phuket immediately after the tragedy.
Court Condemns Post-Fire Conduct as Bail Barrier
Additional Sessions Judge-1 Dvijple Patkar emphasized that even if the Luthra brothers had legitimate business in Phuket, their choice to leave the country instead of returning to Goa "militates against the grant of bail." The court stated that granting bail at this stage would trivialize a tragedy born from reckless permission and send an erroneous signal regarding cases involving loss of human life due to commercial indifference.
Detailed Account of the Fatal Incident
When the fire erupted, the basement quickly filled with smoke, transforming the enclosed kitchen area into what the court described as a "virtual gas chamber." With only a narrow staircase for escape and no ventilation or fire safety installations, occupants were trapped, leading to 25 asphyxial deaths. The court observed that this catastrophe was not merely an accident but the foreseeable result of failing to install essential fire safety measures required by law.
Multiple Safety Violations Created Deadly Environment
The court detailed numerous violations that collectively created a manifestly dangerous environment:
- Illegal construction of the premises
- Absence of valid statutory permissions, including fire department NOC
- Lack of approved structural design
- Hazardous interior conditions
- Failure to keep the western exit gate open
- Complete absence of fire-safety measures
Pyrotechnics Used Despite Obvious Dangers
In this hazardous setting, the court noted that using pyrotechnic fireworks inside the club "transcends mere negligence." It represented a deliberate act committed with full awareness of the perilous conditions. The risk to human life was obvious, immediate, and inevitable, not remote or speculative.
Prima facie evidence indicates that Gaurav Luthra, through his position and authority, controlled and was responsible for how the establishment functioned. He permitted pyrotechnic fireworks in enclosed premises without ensuring fire safety compliance. The court rejected his defense that operational managers handled day-to-day functions, stating such conduct demonstrates knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.
Legal Implications Under BNS Section 105
The court found that the Luthra brothers' actions squarely attract Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as they were done with knowledge that they were likely to cause death. This cannot be diluted to mere regulatory breach or accidental mishap. The investigation remains at a crucial stage, with most material witnesses being staff members and employees of the establishment.
Court's Final Rationale for Bail Denial
The court concluded that the alleged offense is of grave nature with wide public ramifications, involving 25 human lives. Granting bail to owners who controlled the premises and were responsible for how events were conducted would contradict settled principles governing bail in cases affecting public safety and confidence. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to holding accountable those whose commercial indifference leads to tragic loss of life.
