The Supreme Court today(August 31) refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order cancelling bail granted to Saurabh Luthra, Gaurav Luthra and Ajay Gupta, the co-owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane, a nightclub in North Goa's Arpora area, which was engulfed in a massive fire, killing 25 people.

It may be recalled that on August 18, a single judge, Justice Neela Gokhale, cancelled the grant granted to the trio, observing that the Sessions Court failed to properly exercise its discretionary powers. The Court directed them to surrender within 2 weeks.

This order was upheld by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu today after briefly hearing Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave(for Luthra brothers) and Shyam Divan(for Ajay Gupta).

Dave submitted that there is no act on the part of the Luthra brothers which led to the killings. He said: "Section 304, Part II [of the Indian Penal Code] is wholly and can never be applied to this case. There is no act of mine which has caused death. Maximum, if the prosecution wants to succeed in this case, then under Section 304A(causing death by negligence), because it means negligence which would also require an act but assuming you didn't due care, that you have reckless disregard for the consequences. "

As per Dave's arguments, for the offence under Section 299 IPC(culpable homicide) to apply, there must be an act on the part of the accused which has caused the death. He said the prosecution can at most bring home the case for death by negligence, the punishment of which has been enhanced to 5 years under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024.

He further submitted that the High Court, while cancelling the bail, considered that the Sessions Court didn't direct periodic attendance of the accused persons before the Investigating Officers and the direction to seek the Court's permission while travelling within India. Dave remarked that if these conditions weighed with the High Court, they could very well be imposed now.

He added that the Luthra brothers are not desirous of travelling right now.

However, the Court refused to entertain. Justice Datta said: "Dismissed."

Divan then requested if two weeks could be granted to surrender, which the Court allowed from today. It also directed that the trial may be expedited for the framing of charges.

Case Details: GAURAV LUTHRA Vs THE STATE OF GOA|SLP(Crl) No. 15665/2026 Diary No. 50907 / 2026| SAURABH LUTHRA Vs THE STATE OF GOA|Connected SLP(Crl) No. 15656/2026 Diary No. 50914 / 2026|AJAY GUPTA Vs STATE OF GOA, SLP(Crl) No. 15634/2026 Diary No. 50893 / 2026