While cancelling the bail granted to the owners and partners of Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, where a fire on December 6 last year in Goa killed 25 people, the High Court of Bombay at Goa slammed the sessions court, saying its order indicated “an improper exercise of discretion” and did not reveal the “enormity of the offence.”

The High Court Tuesday cancelled the bail granted to Gaurav Luthra, Saurabh Luthra and Ajay Gupta and directed the trio to surrender before the police within two weeks. In an order, Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale said the order granting bail to the respondent indicates an improper exercise of discretion by the sessions court.

“There is no application of mind in granting bail to the Respondent. Surprisingly, the Sessions Court has not even directed periodic attendance before the Investigating Officer; no direction was given to request the trial court’s permission to travel within India,” the court said.

The High Court said viewing the offence as “not that heinous” reflected an oversimplified understanding by the sessions court.

“A plain reading of the impugned order reveals not a word on the enormity of the offence. The gravity of the offence must not be undermined. The Respondent and his partners, prima facie, deliberately ignored all safety norms while operating the restaurant and authorising the conduct of cold pyro fireworks, knowing fully well the combustible material used in the roof of the restaurant. House number was distorted to procure a trade license, which in turn was used to forge the health NOC, and all this for the purpose of procuring the Excise license.”

Each partner shrugged off his individual responsibility and indulged only in a blame game, the court said.

“After the incident, the act of taking flight to Phuket, Thailand, also displays the shrugging off of any responsibility for the incident that resulted in twenty-five deaths of innocent people. To look at the offence as ‘not that heinous’ indicates simplicity on the part of the Sessions Court,” the High Court said.

Story continues below this ad

The High Court said that while granting bail, the sessions court has merely held the filing of the charge sheet as a changed circumstance, without adverting to any substantial material in the charge sheet to justify the change of stance earlier taken by it. The court observed that merely holding the chargesheet as a changed circumstance is not sufficient ground to grant bail.

“From the material on record, it is clear that, on account of the acts attributed to the Respondent and his partners, there was a fire in the restaurant, and, on account of the absence of fire extinguishers and other safety installations, 25 people died. The restaurant was operating without licences. The Respondent and his partners could not procure licences because the structure itself was unauthorised. Had they procured valid licences to operate the restaurant, the Respondent and his partners would have been bound to install safety measures and adhere to regulations. This deliberate omission led to the incident, which cost 25 people their lives and left many more injured…The Sessions Court has not recorded any finding contrary to its earlier finding while rejecting bail, except that the charge sheet was filed. Hence, this observation of the Sessions Court is not tenable.”

The High Court said that the sessions court, without referring to its earlier findings, has proceeded on the simplistic premise that since the chargesheet is submitted, no useful purpose will be served by taking the accused into custody.

“Such reasoning, in my view, is untenable, in as much as it glossed over the conduct of the Respondent indicating his complicity in the offence,” it added.