By fleeing to Phuket after Birch inferno, Luthras disregarded lives of staff: Court

Panaji: The Luthra brothers travelling to Phuket after the fire at Birch by Romeo Lane, at Arpora, showed complete disregard for the lives of their employees and patrons at the club, the Mapusa court said while rejecting bail to Gaurav and Saurabh Luthra. Even if they had business related work in Phuket their conduct of travelling out of the country instead of coming to Goa is a circumstance which militates against the grant of bail, the court said.

Grant of bail at this stage “would amount to trivialising a tragedy born out of reckless permission and would send a wholly erroneous signal in matters involving loss of human life due to commercial indifference to safety,” said additional sessions judge-1, Dvijple Patkar.





When the fire broke out, the basement rapidly filled with smoke, converting the enclosed kitchen area into a virtual gas chamber, the court observed.

adding that with only a narrow staircase as a means of escape, and in the absence of ventilation or fire safety installations, the occupants were trapped, leading to the asphyxial deaths of 25 persons.

“Prima facie, the catastrophe was not a mere accident, but the foreseeable consequence of a patent failure to install essential fire safety measures mandated by law, coupled with a reckless disregard for the safety of patrons and staff. Such circumstances, at this stage, militate strongly against the grant of bail,” the court said.

The illegal construction of the premises, the absence of valid statutory permissions, more particularly NOC from the fire department and approved structural design, the hazardous nature of the interiors, the failure to keep the western exit gate open, and the complete lack of fire-safety measures may, if viewed in isolation, appear to be regulatory violations, the court said, adding that their “cumulative effect creates a manifestly dangerous environment”.

“In such a setting, the use of pyrotechnic fireworks inside the club transcends mere negligence or omission. Prima facie, it is a deliberate and positive act committed with full awareness of the perilous conditions prevailing on the spot. The risk to human life was not remote or speculative but obvious, immediate, and inevitable. Therefore, prima facie, the conduct of the applicant squarely attracts the ingredients of Section 105 of the BNS, as the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, and cannot be diluted into a case of mere regulatory breach or accidental mishap,” the court said.

Investigations prima facie indicate Luthra, by virtue of his position and authority, had control over and responsibility for the manner in which the establishment was permitted to function, and permitted use of pyrotechnic fireworks in an enclosed premises without ensuring compliance with fire safety norms and measures, the court said.

“Such conduct prima facie demonstrates knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 105 of the BNS,” the court said, rejecting his contention that he appointed operational managers who were responsible for day-to-day functioning and that he did not engage in micromanagement.

The court said that the investigation is presently at a crucial and sensitive stage and that most of the material witnesses are staff members and employees of the establishment.

“The offence alleged is of a grave nature, involving loss of 25 human lives and having wide public ramifications. Grant of bail at this stage, particularly to an owner who had control over the premises and responsibility for the manner in which the event was permitted to be conducted, would be contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of bail in cases involving offences affecting public safety and public confidence,” the court said.