The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the bail pleas of businessmen Gaurav Luthra, Saurabh Luthra and Ajay Gupta, accused in the Goa nightclub fire case in which 25 people died in December 2025. The matter was heard by a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.
Senior AdvocateDr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gaurav Luthra argued that the High Court, while cancelling the bail, had effectively conducted a “mini trial” by extensively relying on the chargesheet. He also pointed to material which, according to the defence, had not been considered by the High Court. He submitted that the fire department’s report had stated that the exact cause of the fire could not be ascertained.
“
“So after doing a mini trial by simply quoting the charge sheet, this is all ignored. Cause of fire unknown, inconclusive. In terms of the charge sheet filed so far, the report issued by the department of fire on 5th February, page 124 clearly states that the exact cause of fire cannot be ascertained.”
He also challenged the prosecution’s case concerning the use of “cold pyre”, submitting that the witness evidence indicated that it had been used at thousands of events without previous complaints of fires being caused by it. The defence further argued that the persons directly responsible for procurement and handling of the material had not been arrested or chargesheeted.
Singhvi also disputed the allegation that his client was a flight risk, pointing out that although he travelled to Phuket on December 7, a day after the incident, he had a return ticket and subsequently came back to India.
Thereafter, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Ajay Gupta, submitted that Gupta was a sleeping partner and investor with a 10% share in the LLP and had no role in its day-to-day operations. He relied on the partnership agreement identifying Gaurav and Sourav Luthra as the designated partners responsible for the LLP’s affairs.
Mr Divan further submitted that Gupta had cooperated with the investigation, the chargesheet had already been filed and there was no realistic prospect of the trial commencing within a reasonable period. He also pointed out that Gupta had deposited his passport and complied with the conditions imposed when bail was granted. He concluded by saying the reversal order of the high court was not justified.
Finally, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Saurabh Luthra, argued that the High Court had exceeded the permissible scope of its jurisdiction under Section 439(2) CrPC while setting aside the bail granted by the trial court. He submitted that the provision does not permit the High Court to undertake a fresh or deeper scrutiny of the merits of the case as though it were hearing an appeal.
“
“An order under Section 439(2) is not an appealable order, nor is it a revisionary order. It is an order that vests a discretion in the courts, that you can’t go into the reasoning of the lower court. It’s not an appeal. So the High Court here has, if your Lordship sees Para 36, said the deeper scrutiny is required than that which has been done by the trial court.”
Mr Dave also challenged the applicability of Section 304 Part II, arguing that there was no act attributable to his client that had caused the deaths. He submitted that, at the highest, the prosecution could seek to invoke the provision relating to death caused by negligence, but that Section 304 Part II required an act causing death. He further submitted that concerns cited by the High Court regarding conditions such as periodic attendance or restrictions on travel could have been addressed by imposing appropriate bail conditions, rather than cancelling bail altogether.
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the bail pleas. The trial court was encouraged to expedite the process of framing charges.
Also Read: Bombay High Court Cancels Bail of Goa Nightclub Owners in Case Over Death of 25 Persons in Fire