The trial court that granted bail to the two co-owners and their business partner of the North Goa nightclub where a massive fire killed 25 people last year “overlooked the gravity of the offence”, the Bombay High Court at Goa said in its order that cancelled the bail granted to the two owners of Birch by Romeo Lane.
They were released after being granted bail in a second FIR eight days later. “The material on record is sufficient to prima facie point the arrow of intent towards the Respondent and his partners. Each partner shrugged off his individual responsibility and indulged only in a blame game. The Respondent’s arguments were based on delegated authority: he had engaged individuals to run the restaurant, as he was operating as many as twenty restaurants in the country, making it impossible for him to personally oversee the Birch restaurant. After the incident, the act of taking flight to Phuket, Thailand, also displays the shrugging off of any responsibility for the incident that resulted in twenty-five deaths of innocent people.
The two brothers, Saurav and Gaurav Luthra, along with their business partner Ajay Gupta were granted bail by the trial court on April 1 in connection with the devastating fire at the club on December 6 last year.
To look at the offence as ‘not that heinous’ indicates simplicity on the part of the Sessions Court,” justice Gokhale said in the order. The high court stressed that the respondent and partners, “prima facie, deliberately ignored all safety norms while operating the restaurant”. “House number was distorted to procure a trade license, which in turn was used to forge the health NOC, and all this for the purpose of procuring the excise license,” the high court noted.
“The order granting bail to the Respondent indicates an improper exercise of discretion by the Sessions Court. There is no application of mind in enlarging the Respondent on bail.
The prosecution had challenged the grant of bail to the Luthra brothers and Ajay Gupta, arguing that the sessions court failed to appreciate the enormity and gravity of the offence, “in which 25 innocent persons lost their lives due to gross criminal negligence, reckless conduct and deliberate violation of statutory safety norms on the part of the owners and their partners.”
Surprisingly, the Sessions Court has not even directed periodic attendance before the Investigating Officer; nor has it directed the Respondent to seek the trial Court’s permission to travel within India,” the high court added.
“On account of the absence of fire extinguishers and other safety installations, 25 people died. Because the structure itself was unauthorised, the restaurant was operating without licences,” the court said in its order, emphasising that the owners could not have been issued licences.
