New Delhi: The ongoing investigation into the tragic fire at the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub in Arpora, Goa, which claimed 25 lives over the weekend, has taken a complex turn as the club’s owners, Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, approached a Delhi court seeking anticipatory bail. On Wednesday, the Rohini Court heard their plea but refused to grant immediate interim relief, seeking instead a response from the Goa government regarding the transit anticipatory bail filed by the brothers. The developments have once again brought the focus to the circumstances surrounding the fire, the owners’ legal strategies, and their current status in Thailand.

While the investigation in Goa continues, the Luthra brothers’ claims in Delhi highlight several aspects of their defence. Here are five key points raised by Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra in the court proceedings:

1. Medical Condition of Saurabh Luthra

During the hearing, the legal team representing Saurabh Luthra emphasised his health concerns. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra informed the court that Saurabh suffers from epilepsy and hypertension, conditions that, according to his counsel, could affect his ability to endure immediate detention or court proceedings. The disclosure was made to underline the need for consideration of medical vulnerabilities when assessing the brothers’ plea for anticipatory bail.

Saurabh’s medical condition has been central to the brothers’ argument that immediate arrest could adversely affect his health, particularly in high-stress situations such as custody or extended court proceedings. The lawyers suggested that the court take these health concerns into account before considering any enforcement action against him.

2. Questioning Culpability

A key aspect of the Luthra brothers’ defence revolves around their alleged lack of direct operational responsibility for the nightclub at the time of the fire. Their legal team argued that the local managerial staff, who have already been arrested, were responsible for the day-to-day operations, including compliance with fire safety norms and crowd management.

According to the lawyers, the brothers, while linked to the club as licensees, had limited involvement in the operational decisions that might have contributed to the disaster. By highlighting this distinction, the defence seeks to frame the tragedy as an unfortunate event occurring under the purview of management staff, rather than a consequence of actions or negligence directly attributable to the owners.

This argument, if accepted, could affect the scope of culpability in the ongoing investigation. However, legal experts note that under Indian law, owners and licensees can still be held liable for ensuring the safety of patrons, which means the ultimate responsibility could still involve the Luthra brothers.

3. Allegation of a “Witch-Hunt”

The brothers’ lawyers also claimed that the state government was engaging in a targeted “witch-hunt” against the Luthras. They emphasised that the brothers do not own the club outright, but rather acted as licensees, implying that legal action was being pursued in a manner disproportionate to their involvement.

This narrative frames the ongoing investigation as politically motivated or unduly aggressive, intended to shift blame toward the Luthras as prominent figures associated with the nightclub. The “witch-hunt” claim underscores the brothers’ attempt to challenge the manner in which the authorities have pursued legal action, including the issuance of arrest warrants and media coverage surrounding the case.

4. Petition for Anticipatory Bail

Central to the proceedings in Delhi is the petition for anticipatory bail, which seeks legal protection for the brothers to return to India from Thailand safely. Their legal counsel requested that the court grant transit anticipatory bail so they could travel back and approach the Goa courts for further relief regarding their involvement in the investigation.

The anticipatory bail plea underscores the brothers’ effort to pre-empt immediate arrest while formal judicial procedures in Goa are ongoing. The plea also indicates the Luthras’ willingness to engage with Indian courts, albeit under conditions that ensure their personal safety and avoid immediate detention, particularly considering the high-profile nature of the case.

5. Departure to Thailand

The Luthra brothers’ departure from India shortly after the fire has been a focal point of public and media attention. According to their statements, Saurabh had traveled to Thailand for a business meeting a day before the incident occurred, while both brothers left for Phuket within five hours of the fire, highlighting the rapidity of their travel abroad.

Indian law enforcement agencies, including the Goa Police and central investigative bodies, are in close contact with Thai authorities to geo-locate Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra. The objective is to ensure their deportation to India based on arrest warrants issued in connection with the nightclub fire, bypassing potentially lengthy extradition procedures.

Officials have expressed confidence in tracking and bringing back the brothers, citing strong bilateral cooperation between Indian and Thai law enforcement agencies. Historical precedents indicate that fugitives from India have been successfully traced and brought back from Bangkok in recent years, reinforcing optimism regarding the Luthras’ return.

Current Status of the Investigation

The Goa police have arrested six individuals so far in connection with the Birch by Romeo Lane fire, including four managerial-level staff, a person identified as overseeing operations on behalf of the Luthras, and a business partner. Authorities have emphasised that the main accused are being pursued internationally, with active coordination to ensure compliance with legal and judicial directives.

The tragedy, which occurred on the night of December 7, has been linked to multiple factors, including use of pyrotechnics, a thatched roof, alcohol storage, and inadequate emergency exits, contributing to the rapid escalation of the fire and resulting in 25 fatalities, including 20 staff members and five tourists.

The case has drawn attention to broader issues surrounding fire safety compliance in entertainment venues, emergency preparedness, and the accountability of licensees and owners in managing public spaces. Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant has emphasised the importance of stricter safety checks and only allowing licensed operators to function, highlighting the government’s focus on ensuring public safety in tourist establishments.

Legal and Political Implications

The legal proceedings surrounding the Luthra brothers underscore the complex intersection of criminal liability, operational responsibility, and international legal cooperation. By raising claims related to medical vulnerability, operational detachment, and alleged targeting, the Luthras are attempting to shape the narrative around their personal and legal accountability.

At the same time, the swift coordination between Indian and Thai authorities illustrates India’s commitment to ensuring accountability in high-profile cases, particularly those involving public tragedies. The case may also influence policy discussions around fire safety regulations, licensing procedures, and emergency management in hospitality and entertainment sectors across India.

Conclusion

The Delhi court proceedings and the Luthra brothers’ claims provide insight into the multiple dimensions of the investigation into the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub fire. From medical conditions and operational responsibility to anticipatory bail and international travel, the case reflects the complexities of modern legal procedures in high-profile criminal matters.

While the brothers remain in Thailand, Indian authorities continue to pursue legal avenues to bring them back for trial, with active cooperation from Thai law enforcement agencies. The case is likely to remain in the spotlight not only for its tragic consequences but also for the broader discussions it raises on regulatory oversight, corporate accountability, and the interplay of legal strategy with public safety considerations.

As the investigation progresses, courts and authorities will need to balance individual rights, operational responsibility, and the public interest, ensuring that justice is served while adhering to the principles of due process and accountability.