Goa fire: Delhi court rejects Luthra brothers' anticipatory bail plea

Luthra brothers had been detained in Thailand

A Delhi court on Thursday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub in Goa where a massive fire last week killed at least 25 people.

On Wednesday, the accused sought four weeks of transit anticipatory bail so that they are not immediately arrested after their return to Delhi from Thailand.

Earlier, Additional Sessions Judge Vandana reserved the order till 5 pm after hearing the arguments of the advocates who appeared for the Luthras.

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. Opposing the plea, the counsel for the state of Goa argued that the Luthra brothers had left Goa immediately after the fire and had been “evading the legal process”.

He said the law does not aid those who refuse to submit to summons or warrants.

Referring to judicial observations, the counsel 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”.