Goa nightclub fire case: Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC order cancelling bail of club owners

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court order cancelling bail granted to the owners of a Goa nightclub where a fire claimed 25 lives in 2025.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu upheld the August 18 order of the High Court and dismissed multiple petitions filed by Saurabh Luthra, Gaurav Luthra and Ajay Gupta, the co-owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub in North Goa’s Arpora area, where a massive fire on December 6 last year left 25 people dead and over 50 injured.

The top court directed the trio to surrender within two weeks and asked the lower court to expedite the trial in the case by speeding up the process for framing of charges.

Senior advocates Abhishek M Singhvi and Siddharth Dave, appearing for Luthra brothers, submitted that the case is not a direct intentional offence and it is of the nature of alleged negligence.

Dave submitted that there was no act on the part of the Luthra brothers which led to the killings.

He said, “Section 304, Part II (of IPC) is wholly and can never be applied to this case. There is no act of mine which has caused death. Maximum, if the prosecution wants to succeed in this case, then it can be under Section 304A (causing death by negligence).” Justice Datta asked Singhvi how many people lost their lives in the restaurant.

The senior counsel submitted the death toll was 25, but there are two basic errors in the impugned judgment of the High Court.

He submitted that several other co-accused have been granted bail in the case.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Gupta, submitted that he has only ten per cent share in the business and has nothing to do with the incident.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and standing counsel Surjendu Sankar Das, appearing for Goa, opposed the petitions filed by the trio and said the High Court has asked them to surrender in two weeks.

The bench, while dismissing the petitions, said two weeks’ time is granted to them from today to surrender. The Luthras had left for Phuket in Thailand shortly after the fire incident, following which an Interpol Blue Corner Notice was issued against them.

The two were detained by the Thai authorities in Phuket on December 11 following the intervention of the Indian mission, which was in close touch with the Thai government in the case.

A Delhi court on December 16, 2025, granted a two-day transit remand to Goa police after they brought to India.

The high court had on August 18 set aside the bail of the trio, 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 high court had 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.

The Luthra brothers, along with Gupta, were partners in M/s Being GS Hospitality Arpora LLP, which operated the nightclub. The three were granted bail by the trial court in April this year.

In its order, the High Court had directed the three accused to surrender before the Sessions Court within two weeks.

The Goa government challenged the Sessions Court’s order granting bail to the accused trio before the High Court while arguing that the lower 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 high court had noted that the restaurant had no adequate fire safety installations and emergency measures, resulting in the death of 25 people, many of whom were unable to escape.

It had 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 High Court, however, had said the accused were at liberty to seek bail afresh after surrender, which the trial court will consider on its own merits and in accordance with law.