Observing that the Sessions Court failed to apply its mind and improperly exercised its discretion, the Bombay High Court on August 18 cancelled the bail granted to Sourabh Luthra, Gaurav Luthra and Ajay Gupta the co-owners of the Birch By Romeo Lane, a prominent nightclub in North Goa's Arpora area, which was engulfed in massive fire killing 25 people.

Sitting at the Goa bench, single-judge Justice Dr Neela Gokhale while cancelling the bail has now ordered the trio to surrender before the police within a period of two weeks.

"A plain reading of the impugned order reveals not a word on the enormity of the offence. The gravity of the offence must not be undermined. The Respondent and his partners, prima facie, deliberately ignored all safety norms while operating the restaurant and authorising the conduct of cold- pyro fireworks, knowing fully well the combustible material used in the roof of the restaurant... The order granting bail to the Respondents indicates an improper exercise of discretion by the Sessions Court. There is no application of mind in enlarging the Respondent on bail. Surprisingly, the Sessions Court has not even directed periodic attendance before the Investigating Officer; nor has it directed the Respondents to seek the trial Court's permission to travel within India. The Respondents shall surrender before the Sessions Court within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading the present order," the judge ordered.

To look at the offence as 'not that heinous' indicates simplicity on the part of the Sessions Court, Justice Gokhale pointed out.

In the 27-page judgment, Justice Gokhale noted that the Sessions Court in its initial order denying bail had specifically found the restaurant to be a manifestly hazardous environment, exposing both patrons and staff to a foreseeable risk of fire and loss of life.

"The Court also relied on material showing that the Respondents were well aware of the dangers of operating cold pyro technic during belly dance performances, especially noting that the material used in the construction of the roof was easily combustible. While granting bail to the Respondents, the Sessions Court has merely held the filing of the charge sheet as a changed circumstance, without adverting to any substantial material in the charge sheet to justify the change of stance, earlier taken by it. It is important to note that merely holding the charge sheet as a changed circumstance is not sufficient ground for the grant of bail," the bench noted.

From the statements of witnesses placed on record, the judge noted that the soundproof glass was installed at the Respondents' instructions, which prevented smoke from escaping and the staff was never provided with any training to handle fire incidents, and there was no fire extinguisher equipment in the restaurant. There was also no emergency exit to the kitchen, the court noted.

"It is clear that, on account of the acts attributed to the Respondents, there was a fire in the restaurant, and, on account of the absence of fire extinguishers and other safety installations, 25 people died. The restaurant was operating without licences. The Respondents could not procure licences because the structure itself was unauthorised. Had they procured valid licences to operate the restaurant, the Respondents would have been bound to install safety measures and adhere to regulations. This deliberate omission led to the incident, which cost 25 people their lives and left many more injured," the bench noted.

The Sessions Court, in its previous Order rejecting bail, Justice Gokhale noted, considered this and, while allowing the second application, failed to record any changed circumstances that came to light after the filing of the charge sheet. The Sessions Court has not recorded any finding contrary to its earlier finding while rejecting bail, except that the charge sheet was filed. Hence, this observation of the Sessions Court is not tenable, the judge noted.

"Such reasoning, in my view, is untenable, inasmuch as it glossed over the conduct of the Respondents indicating his complicity in the offence. The Sessions Court ought to have taken note of and/or considered the material collected during the investigation even to find out whether there is any material collected during the investigation involving the Respondents for the serious offence as alleged and whether it is a fit case to enlarge him on bail or not. The finding upon flight risk is contrary to the record. The Respondent had fled to Phuket, Thailand, and was apprehended only after the issuance of a non-bailable warrant, proclamation, and Blue Corner Notice, and was later deported to India. None of these matters is addressed in the reasons," Justice Gokhale noted.

With these observations, the bench cancelled the bail granted to the trio.

Appearance:

Additional Public Prosecutor Swati Kamat Wagh appeared for the State.

Advocates Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Vaibhav Suri, S Khan and J Jain represented the Accused.

Case Title: State of Goa vs Saurabh Luthra (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 11 of 2026)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 389

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment