The Luthra Brothers, Sourabh and Gaurav Luthra, facing charges in connection with the devastating fire at a night club in Arpora, Goa, have suffered a major legal blow. The Rohini Court in Delhi has dismissed their anticipatory bail application, intensifying their legal challenges, while this decision follows extensive arguments presented by both the Goa government and the defense lawyers, each putting forth their respective claims and evidence before the court.
Goa Government's Allegations: Evasion and Non-Cooperation
During the hearing, the counsel representing the Goa government leveled serious accusations against the Luthra Brothers, while the court was informed that immediately after the fire incident, the accused fled to Thailand and failed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The lawyer explicitly stated that at 1:15 AM on December 7, shortly after the fire, the accused booked. Flight tickets worth lakhs of rupees via 'Make My Trip' and departed for Thailand on an Indigo flight. It was emphasized that they had no business engagements in Thailand, contrary to the claims made by the defense.
Expired Licenses and Misrepresentation
The Goa government's lawyer further highlighted that the trade licenses for the night club had expired in 2023 and had not been renewed. It was also pointed out that both brothers had applied for the lease. The defense's assertion that they were merely licensees and that the business was managed locally was refuted, while the lawyer clarified that Sourabh Luthra is a signatory, indicating their direct involvement in the business operations.
Attempts to Evade Investigation
The counsel elaborated that when the police visited their residence the following day, their mother denied any knowledge of their whereabouts, a statement echoed by their lawyer. Their disappearance immediately after the incident raised questions about their conduct, while consequently, the court issued non-bailable warrants, a lookout notice on December 7, and an Interpol blue corner notice on December 9. Indigo Airlines also provided the police with the travel details of Sourabh and Gaurav Luthra.
Safety Violations and Casualties
The Fire Department informed the court that no No-Objection Certificate (NOC) had been obtained for the bar,. And there was only a single entry and exit point, constituting a severe violation of safety standards. The lawyer contended that false information was presented to the court and that the accused were evading the investigation, while it was also stressed that 25 lives were lost in the incident. The medical history provided by the accused was deemed incorrect, and the argument that they could undertake an urgent foreign trip but not return to cooperate with the investigation was viewed as suspicious.
Luthra Brothers' Defense: Threats and Retaliation Claims
Tanveer Mir, the counsel for the Luthra Brothers, acknowledged the tragic nature of the incident but asserted that his clients and their family had received death threats from all quarters following the fire. He alleged that the entire Goa state machinery engaged in "revenge action" post-incident, while mir stated that two of his clients' restaurants/clubs were bulldozed, and properties were sealed. In such a situation, he argued, any individual would seek to protect their life.
Denial of Absconding and Questioning Warrants
Mir refuted the claim that his clients were absconding, stating that if they were, they wouldn't have appeared in court. He argued that had they been provided protection overnight, they would have been in India by dawn. He questioned the Goa police's swift issuance of non-bailable warrants within a day and the lack of notice at their home, email, or mobile, terming it part of a "retaliatory action.
Business Operations and Reason for Travel
Mir clarified that both petitioners weren't present at the scene during the incident. He explained that as licensees, they would sign documents, but daily operations were handled by local management. He mentioned that his clients own over 14 restaurants nationwide, and decisions regarding daily operations aren't made from Delhi but by operation managers. He also claimed to have visited Goa only twice. While Goa police denied their business presence in Phuket, Mir insisted they do have business there and had called a travel agent on December 6 to book tickets for an urgent business meeting, and unfortunately, the incident occurred that very night.
Willingness to Cooperate with Protection
The lawyer stated that his clients weren't fleeing and wished to return to India to face the investigation, but they feared "lynching" in Thailand, while he accused the state government of acting with vindictiveness and requested relief only until their return to India, after which they could approach the Goa court. Citing Supreme Court precedents, he emphasized the possibility of transit anticipatory bail and mentioned approaching the Bombay High Court, while he sought police protection for his clients, highlighting their clean criminal record and fear of mob violence if arrested without protection.
Court's Verdict and Future Course of Action
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Rohini Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of the Luthra Brothers. Following this decision, the Luthra Brothers will now either have to surrender to the Goa police or appeal to a higher court. Their lawyer had previously indicated that regardless of the court's decision, his clients would return to India and surrender to the police once the period of transit anticipatory bail expires, provided they receive adequate protection, while this case marks a significant turn in the Goa night club fire investigation, and the Luthra Brothers now face the full force of the law.
