Gaurav Luthra (centre) and Saurabh Luthra (right) who fled India after a fire at his Goa nightclub that claimed 25 lives. The Thailand Police detained the Luthra brothers on December 11, 2025.
| Photo Credit: PTI
A Delhi court on Thursday (December 11, 2025) rejected the transit anticipatory bail pleas of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub in Goa where a massive fire last week killed 25 people.
On Wednesday (December 10), the accused sought four weeks of transit anticipatory bail so that they were not immediately arrested after their return to Delhi from Thailand.
Additional Sessions Judge Vandana dismissed the bail plea. A detailed order is awaited.
During the proceedings, counsel for the State of Goa opposed the pleas, saying, “They left, they concealed, and they are now seeking leniency.”
He said the Luthra brothers had left Goa immediately after the fire incident and had been “evading the legal process”.
The State counsel said the law does not aid those who refuse to submit to summons or warrants.
Referring to judicial observations, he said: “Once it is shown that a person is attempting to evade the process of law, the court should not come to his aid at all.”
He added that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief and cannot be granted to those who have “created obstacles in the execution of warrants or concealed themselves”.
The counsel submitted that serious allegations were pending, including non-bailable warrants. “This is not a case for granting the privilege of anticipatory bail. The gravity of the offence and the conduct of the applicants disentitle them from any protection,” he argued.
Seeking the relief, one of the counsels for the applicants argued that they were willing to return immediately and face the investigation, and urged the court not to “punish them at the threshold”.
He said the brothers had approached the Delhi court at the earliest opportunity and undertook to join the probe without delay. “If I land in India tonight and the investigating officer (IO) tells me to appear at midnight, I will be there,” he said.
The counsel said that transit bail was not a determination on merits but a limited protection to ensure safe access to the right court.
He cited a Supreme Court order permitting an accused abroad, against whom Blue and Red Corner notices were contemplated, to return to India with temporary protection.
“I only seek protection for a few days to reach the court safely. When a citizen is willing to submit to the law, the Court must extend a helping hand, not a fist,” he said.
Published – December 11, 2025 07:03 pm IST
