The Bombay High Court at Goa has set aside the bail granted to businessmen Sourabh Luthra, Gaurav Luthra and Ajay Gupta the co-owners of Birch by Romeo Lane, a prominent restaurant-cum-club in Arpora, Goa, where 25 people died in a fire during a dance event in December 2025.
Justice Neela Gokhale held that the Sessions Court had improperly exercised its discretion in granting bail and directed Luthra to surrender within two weeks.
The fire broke out on December 6, 2025, when cold pyro fireworks were allegedly being used near the DJ console. The restaurant allegedly had no fire-safety or firefighting equipment, no emergency exit, inadequate ventilation and only one narrow entry and exit. The premises had combustible materials including wood, plastic and dry grass, causing the fire to spread rapidly. Twenty-two men and three women, comprising guests and staff, died, while several others were injured.
The investigation also alleged that the restaurant was operating without requisite permissions and licences and that the structure itself was unauthorised. Investigators further found an allegedly forged Health Department NOC submitted to obtain an excise licence.
The Sessions Court had initially rejected Luthra brothers’s bail, finding prima facie material that the restaurant was being operated despite serious fire-safety violations and that management had permitted pyrotechnic fireworks despite the risks. However, after the charge-sheet was filed, the Sessions Court granted bail, treating the filing of the charge-sheet as a changed circumstance.
Read at: Delhi Court Rejects Transit Anticipatory Bail for Goa Nightclub Owners in Deadly Fire Case
Read at: Goa Court Grants Conditional Bail to Luthra Brothers in Anjuna Fire Case
The High Court held that mere filing of the charge-sheet could not justify a fresh grant of bail, particularly when the earlier order had recorded serious findings against the accused. It relied on settled principles distinguishing cancellation of bail on account of subsequent misconduct from interference with an order granting bail that is legally improper or ignores relevant material. The court recorded:
“
“Admittedly, the Sessions Court, while rejecting the first bail which was filed before the charge sheet, had considered the case in detail and had recorded a finding that the case is heinous; the Respondent and his partners were involved in manipulating documents to portray that they had a licence to operate the restaurant; there was no NOC from the fire department; there were no fire extinguishers in the restaurant, the exit and entry was only one narrow passage; the basement was congested; there was no proper ventilation.”
Justice Gokhale further noted that the Sessions Court had not identified any substantial change in circumstances after the earlier rejection of bail. The High Court held that the Sessions Court’s reasoning that the filing of the charge-sheet itself constituted a changed circumstance was insufficient.
The High Court also considered the material concerning Luthra’s alleged flight to Phuket after the incident. The record showed that he was subsequently apprehended after issuance of a non-bailable warrant, proclamation proceedings and a Blue Corner Notice, and was later deported to India.
The Court was particularly critical of the manner in which the Sessions Court had treated the gravity of the alleged offences, observing that the material indicated that the restaurant had been operating without licences and without mandatory safety installations.
“
“From the material on record, it is clear that, on account of the acts attributed to the Respondent and his partners, there was a fire in the restaurant, and, on account of the absence of fire extinguishers and other safety installations, 25 people died. The restaurant was operating without licences. The Respondent and his partners could not procure licences because the structure itself was unauthorised. Had they procured valid licences to operate the restaurant, the Respondent and his partners would have been bound to install safety measures and adhere to regulations. This deliberate omission led to the incident, which cost 25 people their lives and left many more injured.”
The Court also rejected the Sessions Court’s reliance on the voluminous charge-sheet, the number of witnesses and the anticipated length of the trial as grounds for bail, while referring to State of Karnataka v. Sri Darsha, 2025 INSC 979 which held that noting that these factors could not by themselves outweigh the gravity of the allegations and material collected during investigation.
The High Court ultimately quashed the April 1, 2026 order granting bail and directed Luthra brothers to surrender before the Sessions Court within two weeks. It clarified that the observations were prima facie and confined to the correctness of the bail order. Luthra brotherswould remain at liberty to seek bail afresh after surrender, which the trial court would consider on its own merits and in accordance with law.
Bombay High Court at Goa, Justice Neela Gokhale
