The Rohini court of Delhi on Wednesday refused to give interim immediate relief to owners Luthra brothers- Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra- in connection with the Goa nightclub fire case.
The two brothers sought an interim protect from arrest on medical grounds.
Accused filed applications for transit anticipatory bail
The hearing in the Goa club fire case commenced at the Rohini Court in Delhi, where the accused, Gaurav Luthra and Saurabh Luthra, filed applications for transit anticipatory bail. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, along with Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmad Mir, appeared on behalf of the two accused, seeking interim protection.
The hearing in the Goa club fire case has commenced at the Rohini Court in Delhi, where the accused, Gaurav Luthra and Saurabh Luthra, have filed applications for transit anticipatory bail. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, along with Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmad Mir, appeared…
— ANI (@ANI) December 10, 2025
Advocate: Saurav Luthra suffers from epilepsy and hypertension
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra mentioned medical grounds, pointing to the health condition of one of the accused, Saurav Luthra, who suffers from epilepsy and hypertension. He emphasised that the accused are not the owners of the club but merely licensees, operating with valid permissions. The ownership, he clarified, lies with someone else.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for accused Saurabh Luthra cited medical grounds, pointing to the health condition of one of the accused, Saurav Luthra, who suffers from epilepsy and hypertension. He emphasised that the accused are not the owners of…
— ANI (@ANI) December 10, 2025
Court questioned on absence of both the accused
While making observation, the court said the applicant was not physically present within its jurisdiction and questioned how the petition for anticipatory bail could be considered maintainable in such circumstances.
Advocate Tanveer Ahmad Mir put legal precedents to address the Court’s query. The lawyer said that he was moving the application because the applicant is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of the Court. He emphasised that the sole relief sought was protection from arrest.
State Counsel requested time to file detailed status report
Counsel for the State, however, requested time to file a detailed status report. He stated that the accused had fled the country, that a Non‑Bailable Warrant (NBW) had already been issued by the Goa court, and that other relevant facts needed to be placed on record.
The Court directed the State to file its reply with all necessary details and fixed the matter for consideration the following day.
At this stage, Advocate Tanveer Ahmad Mir urged the Court to grant interim protection to the applicant until the next hearing. The State’s counsel opposed this request, firmly resisting any grant of interim relief.
