NT Reporter
Mapusa
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa, on Monday granted regular bail to Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, owners of ‘Birch by Romeo Lane’ nightclub, accused of manipulating a Health Department NOC to obtain excise licence for the establishment, where a devastating fire killed 25 people last
December.
The court directed each accused to execute a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of the same amount. The court also imposed various
conditions.
The accused brothers will, however, remain lodged in Colvale Central Jail, as the High Court of Bombay at Goa has set aside the bail orders in the fire tragedy case.
The Health NOC forgery case was registered on December 13, 2025, following a complaint by Dr Roshan Nazareth, health officer at the Primary Health Centre, Candolim.
According to the FIR, the accused duo allegedly manipulated a Health NOC issued to another establishment and submitted it as genuine before the excise department to obtain an excise licence for Birch by Romeo Lane at Arpora.
The alleged forgery surfaced after the nightclub caught fire in December 2025, killing 25 people. The fire broke out on December 6, 2025, when the nightclub was hosting a dance party. As many as 25 people were killed and 50 were injured in the incident.
The Luthra brothers were arrested on March 30, 2026, and were initially granted bail by the JMFC on April 8. However, the High Court, on August 18, set aside the bail orders and directed them to surrender.
The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed their challenges on August 31, granting them an additional two weeks to surrender. Both the accused surrendered on September 14 and were remanded to judicial custody.
In their fresh bail applications, the accused contended that the chargesheet did not establish their personal involvement in preparing or altering the allegedly forged NOC or knowingly submitting it as genuine. They argued that the documentation for obtaining the excise licence was handled by co-accused Dinesh Khera, while Gauresh Gawas was responsible for uploading the documents.
They also submitted that the investigation had been completed, the chargesheet filed and the evidence was documentary and electronic in nature. They contended that their continued custody was unnecessary and that they had not misused their liberty during the approximately five months they remained on bail.
Opposing the applications, the prosecution argued that the material collected during the investigation prima facie indicated the accused’s involvement in the alleged forgery and use of the NOC. It also raised concerns about the possibility of witnesses being influenced and the accused evading trial.
In its orders, the court noted that the High Court had previously examined the material and expressed a prima facie opinion regarding the allegations. It said the decision on bail did not amount to a finding on the guilt or innocence of the accused, which would be determined during the trial.
While acknowledging concerns arising from their earlier departure to Thailand, the court held that the apprehensions regarding witness influence and absconding could be addressed through stringent conditions.
The court directed the accused to remain personally present on the first three consecutive dates of hearing after their release, cooperate with the trial, furnish their residential address and active mobile number and comply with other conditions.
The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail in the event of any breach.
The accused face charges under Section 419 (punishment for cheating by personation) and other sections of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to forgery, cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property.
