Birch owners’ replies sought in pleas challenging bail to them

Panaji: The Bombay high court on Wednesday sought responses from Birch by Romeo Lane co-owners Saurabh Luthra, Gaurav Luthra and Ajay Gupta in petitions filed by the state challenging the bail granted to them earlier.

Goa govt argued that 25 lives were lost in the fire and that granting bail in such a case which is sensitive and serious was not justified.

They were also granted bail in the Dec 6 fire incident that killed 25 persons at the nightclub.

The Mapusa court, while granting bail to them, observed that the alleged forged NOC nowhere mentioned that it was for obtaining an excise licence or for that matter for selling liquor.

The court observed that the offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and forgery do not fall within the category of the most heinous crimes such as murder, where punishment may extend to death or mandatory life imprisonment.

The court further observed that the Luthra brothers were in custody since Dec 16 for more than three months, and stated that their prolonged incarceration without any likelihood of early conclusion of trial would amount to pretrial punishment.

The Luthras are “not accused of an offence of the gravest nature, such as murder, and the allegations, at the highest, do not attribute any intention to cause death,” additional sessions judge 1, North Goa, Mapusa, Dvijple V Patkar had stated last month.

The court stated that it has to balance the interest of society with the fundamental right to personal liberty and observed that the chargesheet has already been filed, indicating the conclusion of the investigation, and that the case is still at an initial stage.

The trial is not likely to conclude in the near future considering the prevailing “docket explosion, the number of old cases, custody/undertrial prisoners’ cases, direction matters and nature of proceedings, including the fact that the chargesheet is voluminous, running into more than 4,000 pages, comprising several documents and citing 306 witnesses, including outstation witnesses, and arraigning 13 accused persons,” the court held.

“Continued incarceration would thus be punitive, which is legally impermissible,” the court stated.