Today, a Delhi Court found itself confronted with an unusual plea in the aftermath of the tragic Goa nightclub fire that claimed 25 lives. As the courtroom grappled with the fact that the accused club operators were seeking legal protection while still overseas, it raised a fundamental question: Can transit anticipatory bail be sought from outside the country?
The case arose from a massive fire that broke out on the night of December 6 at Birch by Romeo Lane, a nightclub in Arpora, North Goa. Preliminary investigation indicated that the blaze started around midnight in the basement and quickly spread to the first floor, housing a bar and restaurant.
Gaurav and Saurabh Luthra, Delhi-based licensees of the club premises, reportedly left for Thailand shortly after the incident. Following reports that they had “fled,” they approached the Delhi court seeking four weeks’ transit anticipatory bail, claiming they feared immediate arrest upon landing in India and wished to move the Goa courts for further remedies.
The State of Goa informed the court that non-bailable warrants (NBWs) had already been issued, and that when police visited the brothers’ Delhi home, relatives claimed ignorance of their whereabouts.
Senior Advocates Tanveer Ahmed Mir and Sidharth Luthra argued that the brothers had not escaped but had travelled to Thailand for business. They expressed apprehension of arrest at the airport despite their willingness to return and participate in the investigation. They stressed that the brothers were only licensees, not owners, of the club building and could not even undertake structural repairs. Mir added that media pressure, administrative action including alleged bulldozing of their other restaurants, and arrests of managerial staff had created a climate of hostility. Interim protection, they argued, was necessary to allow them to come back and approach the Goa courts. They further contended that the tragedy began when a performer used pyrotechnics, and holding the licensees criminally liable without proof of intent was unwarranted.
Senior Advocate Abhinav Mukerji sought time to file a detailed reply, stating that the anticipatory bail plea was received only that morning. He highlighted that NBWs were already in force and questioned the maintainability of a transit bail plea filed from abroad.
The Court observed that the very basis of a transit anticipatory bail application requires the applicant to be within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It questioned how such a plea could be entertained when both accused were currently in Thailand. The judge remarked that the maintainability of the petition itself came into doubt if the applicants were not physically present in India.
The Trial Court declined to grant interim protection to the Luthra brothers at this stage and listed the matter for further hearing the next day. The State was directed to file its reply before the next proceeding. The Court maintained that it would revisit the matter after examining the State’s response.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :