In a high-profile hearing before Delhi’s Rohini Court, the lawyer representing Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra argued that the brothers, wanted in connection with the devastating Goa nightclub fire, were being painted as fugitives despite no direct involvement in the incident.
Senior advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir told the court that the Luthras were “also humans” who were over 1,000 kilometres away when the fire broke out at their nightclub, Birch by Romeo Lane, which claimed 25 lives. He maintained that the case was one of negligence—not homicide—and said criminal law was being “stretched” to imply intent.
Mir added that the brothers had been receiving threats online, including messages stating they should be “set on fire”, and argued that the intense public emotion was influencing perceptions of guilt.
Businesses, jobs, and claims of harassment
The defence highlighted that the Luthras employ more than 1,500 people across 40 restaurants in India. Mir compared them to entrepreneurs—not offenders leaving after a financial fraud of ₹5,000 crore—insisting they were law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.
He claimed their properties in Goa were bulldozed without adequate notice. “How has their leaving the country on the night of the incident become such a big crime? Liability is being assigned as if they went there and set the fire,” he said.
Mir further argued that while the brothers signed licences as required by law, they were not responsible for day-to-day operations. “They don’t decide what is cooked in the kitchen,” he added.
The Luthras, detained in Phuket on Thursday, reportedly told authorities they had travelled to Thailand for work, not to evade investigation
Prosecution counters: ‘They fled within 40 minutes’
Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, the prosecution told the court that the brothers booked a flight out of India within 40 minutes of the fire and left at 1:17 a.m. on December 7—contrary to their claim of travelling on December 6.
The prosecution also presented photographs which it said showed the brothers planning to set up business in Thailand, arguing that they were smiling in the images despite the deaths of 25 people back home.
“They escaped after people died from the fire,” the prosecution asserted, urging the court not to grant any protection.
Court reserves its order
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court reserved its order and is expected to pronounce its decision later on Thursday. The case continues to draw national attention, given the scale of the tragedy and the high-profile nature of the accused.
The legal battle is set to intensify in the coming days, with questions around liability, negligence, intent and flight from jurisdiction likely to play a central role.