Panaji, Aug 19 The Bombay High Court has set aside the bail granted to three accused in the Goa nightclub fire case that claimed 25 lives, saying the trial court failed to properly consider the material collected during the probe, and erred in observing that the offence was not as heinous as murder or dacoity.
The HC also said that the material on record indicated the restaurant was operating without licences and its structure was unauthorised, and also that the accused and his partners allegedly knew about the risks of conducting fire displays inside the facility without adequate safety measures.
A single bench of Justice Dr Neela Gokhale of the High Court of Bombay at Goa passed the order on August 18 while hearing applications challenging the bail granted to the accused earlier by a trial court. It also granted them two weeks to surrender before the trial court.
On December 6, 2025, a devastating blaze at the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub in Arpora killed 25 people and left 50 others injured.
Brothers Saurav Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, along with their business partner Ajay Gupta, were partners in M/s Being GS Hospitality Arpora LLP, which operated the nightclub. The accused trio had been granted bail by the trial court in April this year.
In its order, the high court directed the three accused to surrender before the sessions court within two weeks. It, however, permitted the accused to move a fresh bail application after surrender.
The court was hearing a plea filed by the state challenging the sessions court's order granting bail to the accused trio.
The state argued that the sessions court had failed to appreciate the gravity of the offence, in which 25 people died due to alleged criminal negligence, reckless conduct and violation of statutory safety norms.
The HC noted that the bail application was the accused's second such plea and that the earlier application had been rejected only two months before.
It said the sessions court had not recorded any changed circumstances, apart from the filing of the chargesheet, to justify granting bail.
The high court also rejected the finding that the accused was not a flight risk, noting that he had left the country on the day the FIR was registered and was later declared absconding. A non-bailable warrant, proclamation proceedings, Look Out Circular and Blue Corner Notice were issued against him, following which he was deported back to India.
It observed that the filing of a chargesheet does not dilute the seriousness of the allegations or create an indefeasible right to bail.
It also said the prospect of a prolonged trial or the volume of the chargesheet could not, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the alleged offence.
The court noted that material prosecution witnesses included employees and staff of the restaurant run by the accused, making them susceptible to influence.
The HC said material on record indicated that the restaurant was operating without licences and that its structure was unauthorised. The accused and his partners allegedly knew about the risks of conducting fire displays inside the restaurant without adequate safety measures.
The court noted allegations that the roof contained combustible material and that the accused and his partners had refused to remove it and install two-inch-thick puff panels. Evidence also indicated water seepage from the walls and stagnant water on the floor, it said.
According to the court, the restaurant had no adequate fire safety installations and emergency measures, resulting in the deaths of 25 people, many of whom were unable to escape.
The court also referred to allegations of forged documents used to obtain licences and observed that the structure was unauthorised, a fact allegedly known to the accused and his partners.
It said the sessions court had erred in observing that the offence was not as heinous as murder or dacoity, stressing that the gravity of the alleged offence could not be undermined.
The HC also noted a report of the Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Goa, which said that findings from a demonstration, read with the video of the incident, indicated that the fire may have been triggered by fire sparklers used in the club, though the final forensic report was awaited.
It further held that the sessions court had failed to properly consider the material collected during investigation before granting bail.
While cancelling the bail, the high court clarified that its observations were prima facie and confined to examining the correctness of the bail order and would not affect the trial.
The accused has been given liberty to seek bail afresh after surrender, which the trial court will consider on its own merits and in accordance with law.
