New Delhi: Dismissing the bail applications of Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra last week, a Goa court underlined that their conduct in the wake of the fire tragedy at their Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub amounted to “complete disregard” for the lives of their staff as well as club visitors.
The court noted that the businessmen brothers chose to travel to Phuket rather than come to Goa’s Arpora when news broke of the fire at their nightclub that ultimately claimed 25 lives last December.
Additionally, the court said in the order uploaded Monday that granting bail at the current stage of investigation would amount to “trivialising a tragedy born out of reckless permission” and would send a “wholly erroneous signal” in matters involving loss of human life due to commercial indifference to safety.
The Luthra brothers were arrested after their repatriation from Thailand, where they had fled to hours after the incident came to light.
“In the instant case, there is prima facie material to show that the applicant travelled to Phuket soon after the incident, despite having knowledge of the occurrence of the incident. Prima facie material reveals that the applicant and his brother fled the country upon learning about the tragic incident,” additional sessions judge Dvijple V. Patkar observed.
“Even if the applicant had some business meeting or business-related work in Phuket, his conduct of travelling out of the country instead of coming down to Goa is a circumstance which militates against the grant of bail. Such conduct of the applicant shows complete disregard for the lives of his very own employees and of the patrons who had visited his club.”
Court lists violations
The court flagged the nightclub’s illegal status and said the investigation so far had revealed several violations, including the establishment of the club in a salt pan area and its operation without valid permissions, licences, or NoC from the competent authorities, especially the mandatory one from the fire department.
The court also observed that belly dance performances, accompanied by indoor fireworks, were held every Friday and Saturday at the nightclub, despite the management’s knowledge that the club had a combustible roof and lacked fire-fighting equipment and safety measures.
“These activities were conducted inside the enclosed premises, thereby creating a manifestly hazardous environment and exposing both patrons and staff to a foreseeable risk of fire and loss of life,” the order said.
“Allowing or organising fireworks inside a closed structure, such as the club in the present case, is an inherently dangerous activity. There is prima facie material indicating that fireworks were used indoors during the belly dance performance, the club had combustible roofing and interior decor, and the fire safety norms were violated.”
The court also rejected the arguments made by the Luthra brothers’ counsel, seeking parity with two other staff members who had earlier been granted bail in the same case. The court objected to the argument, stating that their case stood on a different footing.
In December, the court had granted bail to Rajveer Singhania and Priyanshu Thakur, the bar and gate managers, respectively, but rejected similar pleas from the club’s general manager, Vivek Singh, and corporate general manager, Rajiv Modak.
The court observed that the case of the Luthra brothers was on a par with that of Singh and Modak, who had supervisory and decision-making roles in the operation of the nightclub.
“The role attributed to the applicant, being that of an owner having control over the premises and authority over the manner in which the event was permitted to be conducted, stands on a different footing from that of his subordinate staff. In this context, it is relevant to note that this court has granted bail to the gate manager and bar manager, having regard to the limited nature of the role attributed to them,” the court reckoned.
“However, the bail applications of the general manager and corporate general manager were rejected, considering their supervisory authority and decision-making role in the functioning of the establishment. The applicant’s position as an owner is closer to the latter category and cannot be equated with that of the gate manager or bar manager,” it added.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Birch by Romeo Lane is a prime example of how Delhi’s audacity survives in Goa