Gaurav Luthra and Saurabh Luthra, the Goa nightclub owners named in a criminal case after a fire at the club recently killed 25 persons, today told a Delhi court that they did not 'flee' to Thailand as reported widely but had gone there for business reasons.

Their counsel expressed that they were now reluctant to re-enter India on fears of arrest. The two brothers have, therefore, sought four weeks of transit anticipatory bail so that they are not immediately arrested upon their return to India.

Their counsel added that they wished to approach the courts in Goa for further relief.

The State, in response, sought time to file a status report and requested the court to adjourn the matter till then. The State's counsel suggested that the matter could be heard on Friday.

The Luthra brothers' counsel urged the trial court to grant them interim protection until then. The State opposed this request.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vandana of the Rohini Courts proceeded to reject the request for interim protection and posted the matter for further hearing tomorrow.

The State has also been ordered to file a reply by then.

The two Luthra brothers, who are residents of Delhi, had reportedly left to Thailand after a fire broke out at their club, Birch by Romeo Lane’ in North Goa’s Arpora.

The fire incident took place late on the night of December 6.

Preliminary investigation revealed that the blaze began in the basement of the club around midnight. The fire allegedly spread from the basement to the first floor, which has a bar and restaurant.

During today's hearing, the Delhi trial court questioned how the accused brothers could press for transit anticipatory bail in the matter, when they were not even in India at the moment.

"Where are the applicants?" the judge asked.

"In Thailand, but they are residents of Delhi," replied Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir for the Luthra brothers.

"So, how is this maintainable? For transit anticipatory bail, the applicant should be here. Therefore, I am asking how this application is maintainable?" the court questioned.

Mir suggested that the court could grant some form of interim protection so that the accused brothers could come back to India without risking an arrest.

"I went out for my business meeting, and within this period, this fiasco happened. I am willing to give an undertaking today that my lord may permit me till the time the other side files a response, and I will be in the jurisdiction of this court. The applicants are willing to come and be in the jurisdiction of this court," he said.

Also representing the two brothers, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra told the court that his clients were only licensees of the building where the club was located, and not its actual owners.

"I am a licensee. Owners is somebody else. I cannot even do repair work," Senior Advocate Luthra said.

He urged for the grant of interim protection to his clients.

"I am in a peculiar situation. I am saying I want to come back to India, they want to arrest me at the airport. I am saying, let me come back, and I will take my remedies in Goa. They cannot seek an adjournment on the ground that they want to file a reply. The counsel is here. They can file a reply and I may be granted interim anticipatory bail in the meantime," he said.

He also denied the allegation that his clients had 'fled' to Thailand, maintaining that they had gone there for some work.

"I apprehend arrest as soon as I land in Delhi. But I want to come back. I had gone for some work to Thailand… Both of them are residents of Delhi," he argued.

He further questioned why his clients were being squarely blamed for the fire mishap

"This is like a hotel. People who are sitting in Delhi, you [State] want to prosecute them? And what is the allegation? A lady performer comes and uses an anaar (pyrotechnics) and the roof catches fire. It’s a tragedy we understand but is that enough to prove intent on my part?" the senior lawyer argued.

Senior Advocate Mir protested the authorities' move to bulldoze other restaurants run by them as well.

"My other restaurants have been bulldozed without notice. The authorities and even the fourth state (media) are baying for my blood. My managerial people are already in custody. The limited protection will enable me to come to India and face the law," Mir argued.

Senior Advocate Abhinav Mukerji, meanwhile, appeared for the State of Goa and told the court that he received the anticipatory bail application this morning and that the State wanted to place its response on record.

"NBW have been issued against them by the competent court in Goa. When the police went to their place the mother and sister said we don’t know where they are," he added.

"File reply by tomorrow," the Court told him, before adjourning the matter.

A separate public interest litigation petition (PIL) has been filed as well before the Bombay High Court at Goa by social activist Aishwarya Salgaonkar seeking a court-monitored into the incident.

That plea has sought a judicial commission headed by a retired High Court judge should inquire into crowd‑management failures and administrative negligence.

Advocates Shiv Chopra, Saud Khan, Vaibhav Suri, Shivaz Berry and Tushan Rawal also represented the Luthra brothers.

Standing counsel Surjendu Sankar Das along with advocates Annie Mittal, Archita Nigam and Khushboo Hora also appeared for the State of Goa.