Goa nightclub fire: Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC decision to cancel bail of owners

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the order of the Bombay High Court cancelling the bail granted to Saurabh Luthra, Gaurav Luthra and Ajay Gupta, the three co-owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, which was gutted by a fire in December 2025 killing 25 people..A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu dismissed the appeals filed by the owners and directed them to surrender before the authorities within two weeks.The Court also urged the trial court to speed up the process of framing charges..The case relates to the fire that broke out on the night of December 6, 2025 at the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub in North Goa’s Arpora. The fire led to the death of 25 people. Police investigations revealed that the club operated without valid safety clearances or adequate firefighting equipment. The blaze was reportedly sparked by an indoor fire show conducted without necessary precautions. The police have also claimed that the restaurant was functioning without a valid trade license. The Luthra brothers fled to Thailand hours after the blaze before they were later deported and arrested by Goa Police.They were booked along with other partners, the club’s manager, event organisers and staff under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for offences including culpable homicide not amounting to murder, acts endangering life and negligent conduct with respect to fire, read with common intention.The Addditional sessions court at Mapusa in North Goa later granted bail to them.While Gupta was granted bail on March 23, the Luthra brothers were granted bail on April 1. The State then approached the High Court against the same. Justice Neela Gokhale of High Court on August 19 allowed the appeal filed by the State and cancelled the bail.The accused then approached the Supreme Court..During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gaurav Luthra, pointed out that his client had been granted bail after the chargesheet was filed.He argued that the High Court failed to adequately consider this changed circumstance while reversing the trial court’s order.He further argued that the High Court had repeatedly relied on the gravity of the offence even though the allegations were essentially of negligence and did not involve any direct intent to cause death.At this point, Justice Datta asked what had happened at the restaurant and how many people had died.Singhvi replied that 25 people had died.“You run a restaurant, you carry out this business without taking minimum precautions,” the Bench remarked.Singhvi then submitted that the High Court had effectively conducted a “mini-trial” while cancelling bail."The cause of the fire is still unknown. I would be the first person to want to prevent something like this. The State’s case suffers from contradictions. It says cold pyro caused the fire, but its own case is self-contradictory. Flight risk is another inference drawn against me. I go there, my hotel is declared, my return ticket is declared. It is all clearly disclosed,” Singhvi added..Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Ajay Gupta, adopted Singhvi’s submissions and sought to distinguish Gupta’s role from that of the other partners.“I adopt the submissions made by Dr Singhvi and wish to make a few additional points. Since this is a limited liability partnership, I am a sleeping partner. My share is only 10 per cent, and I have nothing to do with the management or day-to-day operations. Mr Gaurav Luthra and Saurabh Luthra are the designated partners. I am essentially an investor, and that must be duly noted and considered," Divan submitted..Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Saurabh Luthra, argued that proceedings for cancellation of bail were neither appellate nor revisional in nature and that the High Court could not undertake a deeper reassessment of the trial court’s exercise of discretion.“An order under Section 439(2) is neither an appellate nor a revisional order. It is an order that rests on the discretion of the court. You cannot go into the reasoning of the lower court. The High Court here has said deeper scrutiny is required than that which has been done by the trial court. My second submission is that Section 304 Part II cannot apply to this case. There is no act of mine which has caused death,” Dave submitted.After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court dismissed the pleas..Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shyam Divan and Siddhartha Dave appeared for the accused persons.Additional Solicitor General SV Raju with advocates Surjendu Sankar Das, Annie Mittal and Vishwajeet Shekhawat, appeared for the State of Goa..[Read Live Coverage]