Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF GOA THR. POLICE INSPECTORversusSAURABH LUTHRA
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court held that the bail order was perverse and illegal, quashing and setting aside the grant of bail to the respondent.
Summary
The State of Goa sought to quash the order granting bail to Mr. Saurabh Luthra, a partner in a restaurant‑cum‑club that caught fire on 6 December 2025, killing 25 people. The fire was allegedly caused by indoor cold‑pyro fireworks in a congested venue lacking fire‑safety equipment, emergency exits, and proper licences, with the accused accused of forging documents to obtain permits. The High Court examined whether the filing of a charge‑sheet constituted a sufficient change of circumstance to justify bail, whether the accused posed a flight risk, and whether parity with a co‑accused was appropriate. Relying on precedents that bail must not be granted in grave offences without proper justification, the Court found the Sessions Court’s reasoning perverse and unsupported by the material. Consequently, the bail order was set aside and the respondent was ordered to surrender, with the application to quash bail allowed.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the charge‑sheet filing as a change of circumstance justifying bail
- Whether the seriousness of the offences and the loss of 25 lives preclude bail
- Whether the respondent is a flight risk despite alleged travel to Thailand
- The applicability of the parity doctrine with a co‑accused whose bail is also under challenge
- The propriety of the Sessions Court’s discretion in granting bail in a case of gross negligence and forgery
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 105, 125, 125(a), 125(b), 238, 241, 287, 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 3(7), 483(3), 61(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439(2)
Subjects
- fire safety violation
- bail revocation
- gross criminal negligence
- forgery of licences
- mass casualty fire
- charge‑sheet filing
- parity doctrine
- flight risk
Judgment
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
Jose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.11 OF 2026
THE STATE OF GOA
Through Police Inspector,
Anjuna Police Station, Goa. ... Applicant.
Versus
Mr. Saurabh Luthra
Son of Shri. Vijay Luthra,
About 40 years of age, Indian Citizen,
Businessman, having residence
at 1523, Outram Lane, Kingsway Camp
New Delhi - 110009. ... Respondent.
Ms. Swati Kamat Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor for Applicant-State.
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud with Mr Vaibhav Suri, Mr S. Khan and Mr J.
Jain, Advocates for the Respondent.
CORAM: DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
RESERVED ON: 5th August 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 18th August 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. By this application, the Applicant-State seeks to quash and set aside the
order dated 1st April 2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
North Goa, Mapusa, in Bail Application No. 65/2026 in connection with C.R.
No. 154 of 2025, dated 7 th December 2025, registered with Anjuna Police
Station, for offences punishable under Sections 105, 125, 125(a), 125(b), 287
read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’), under
which the Respondent was enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions. The
charge-sheet No. 12/2026 was filed on 26 th February 2026. Offences
Page 1 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
punishable under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 238, 241, 3(7) read
with Section 3(5) of the BNS were added.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that 'Birch by Romeo Lane', a
restaurant-cum-club (‘the restaurant’) at Arpora Village, Bardez, Goa, was
owned and operated by 'Being GS Hospitality LLP' ('the firm’). The
Respondent is a partner in the firm, along with his brother, Mr Gaurav Luthra,
and Mr Ajay Gupta. The restaurant is situated in the middle of a salt pan and
comprises a ground floor and a deck floor. The restaurant itself is on the deck
floor, while the kitchen is on the ground floor. It commenced operations in
February 2024. The restaurant is stated to be bereft of sufficient ventilation,
and the entry and exit comprised one narrow opening. The place was
congested
3. On 6th December 2025, at about 23.45 hrs, a dance event was in
progress at the restaurant. It is alleged that cold pyro fireworks were being
operated inside the premises near the DJ console. Sparks from the fireworks
touched the roof and deck floor, and the interiors, made of combustible
materials such as wood, plastic, and dry grass, caught fire. Consequently, the
fire spread rapidly throughout the restaurant. The premises had no fire safety
or firefighting equipment. There was no emergency exit; there was only one
narrow entry and exit, and one ground-floor door was found locked. Neither
the ground floor nor the deck floor had sufficient ventilation. Twenty-two
men and three women, comprising guests and staff of the restaurant, were
Page 2 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
unable to escape and perished. Several others were injured. Two of the bodies
were found on the staircase leading down to the kitchen, and twenty-three
were found in the kitchen itself on the ground floor.
4. On 7th December 2025, at 09.36 hrs, on the complaint of Mr Navneet
Goltekar, Police Sub-Inspector, Anjuna Police Station, FIR No.154/2025 was
registered at Anjuna Police Station for offences punishable under Sections
105, 125, 125(a), 125(b) and 287 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. Sections
338, 336(3), 340(2), 238, 241, 3(7) and 61(2) of the BNS were added during
the course of the investigation. The gravamen of the complaint is that the
owners, partners and managing staff of the restaurant organised a fire show
in the restaurant, which had a roof made of combustible material, without
care and caution, without fire safety equipment and without an emergency
exit. The restaurant was allegedly operating without requisite permissions and
licences of the competent authorities.
5. The investigation further disclosed that the restaurant was operating
on the basis of forged and manipulated documents. A No Objection Certificate
(‘NOC’), purportedly issued by the Health Officer, Primary Health Centre,
Candolim, bearing the printed digital signature of that officer, was forged and
submitted to the Excise Department to obtain the excise licence. A separate
FIR No. 154/2025, dated 17th December 2025, was registered at Mapusa
Police Station.
6. The Respondent filed Bail Application No. 6 of 2026 before the
Page 3 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
Additional Sessions Judge-I, North Goa, Mapusa. By Order dated 12 th
February 2026, the Additional Sessions Judge-I rejected the bail application
on the following grounds:
i. The Investigating Officer's findings revealed multiple violations: the
club, located in a salt pan, was built illegally and operated without
valid permits, licences, or NOC’s, including from the Directorate of
Fire and Emergency Services.
ii. The Investigation papers showed staff lacked fire emergency
training, drills, and safety equipment. Witness statements supported
this. The investigation prima facie suggested an offence was
committed.
iii. Management regularly hosted belly dance performances with
indoor fireworks every Friday and Saturday, despite the risk from
combustible roofing, inflammable décor, overcrowding, and lack of
safety measures. This created a clearly hazardous environment,
risking fire and loss of life.
iv. Prima facie, there was material indicating that Fire Safety Norms
were violated.
v. The Respondent allowed a dance event with pyrotechnic fireworks
inside the club, despite knowing the roof was combustible, that it
lacked fire safety measures, and that it had no emergency exits.
Page 4 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
Evidence suggests the Respondent was aware and consented to this
danger.
vi. The Respondent's role differs from that of his subordinate staff. The
Court granted bail to the Gate Manager and Bar Manager but
denied it to the General Manager and Corporate General Manager
because of their supervisory roles. The Court considered the
Respondent’s owner status as placing him in the supervisory
category.
vii. Prima facie, the material indicates that the Respondent is liable, as
he, along with his partners, permitted and facilitated the use of
pyrotechnic fireworks inside the premises without safety norms.
viii. Whether the Respondent, having appointed Operational Managers
to run the day-to-day work of the restaurant, was innocent, is to be
decided during the trial.
ix. The Court rejected the Respondent’s plea that he was not physically
present at the nightclub as misconceived. The Court held that the
Respondent and his partners consciously permitted the use of
pyrotechnic fireworks inside the club premises as per the agreement
with the event management person.
x. Prima facie, a causal connection exists between the permission
granted and the fatal incident. The deaths were not the result of an
Page 5 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
unforeseen accident, but a natural foreseeable consequence of
allowing inherently dangerous activity in an unsafe and confined
environment.
xi. The Court held that the offence was grave and that the prima facie
case for knowledge was made out. It further held that the callous
disregard for public safety left no scope for exercising jurisdiction in
the Respondent’s favour.
xii. The Respondent’s submission that he had not permitted the use of
pyrotechnic fireworks was not accepted, as the material indicated
that the Respondent and his partners were aware of it. His own
visits to the club were sufficient to infer knowledge.
xiii. The application of the principle in the Sushil Ansal v. State through
CBI1 case regarding causa causans was rejected.
xiv. The material on record, prima facie, disclosed that the deceased
persons succumbed to death due to asphyxiation from dense smoke
inhalation.
xv. The placement of the décor and the enclosed spaces left no
alternative means of egress. There was only one access to and from
the basement, via a narrow staircase. The catastrophe was, prima
facie, not a mere accident but a foreseeable consequence of the
Respondent’s failure to install essential fire safety measures
1 (2014) 6 SCC 173.
Page 6 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
mandated by law. There was reckless disregard for the safety of
patrons and staff, which strongly militates against the grant of bail.
xvi. Most of the material witnesses were staff members and employees
of the Respondent, and there is a reasonable apprehension that the
Respondent will influence them.
xvii. The instrument of licence was also forged. The allegations of
forgery strengthened the prima facie case against the Respondent
and others.
xviii. Prima facie material shows that the Respondent and his brother
travelled to Phuket soon after the fire, despite having knowledge
that it had occurred. This conduct demonstrates a complete
disregard for the lives of his own employees and patrons.
xix. The Respondent's reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in the
matter of P. Chidambaram v. CBI 2, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI 3, etc., was
held not applicable.
7. On these grounds, amongst others, the Additional Sessions Judge-I
rejected the bail application by Order dated 12 th February 2026. Thereafter, a
charge sheet was filed on 26 th February 2026, after which the Respondent
immediately filed the second bail application. By the impugned order dated 1 st
April 2026, the Court, on the basis that filing of the charge sheet is a changed
2 (2020) 13 SCC 337.
3 (2012) 1 SCC 40.
Page 7 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
circumstance, sufficient to grant bail to the Respondent, enlarged the
Respondent and others on bail. It is this Order which is impugned by the
Applicant.
8. Ms Swati Kamat Wagh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared
for the State, and Dr Abhinav Chandrachud, learned counsel, represented the
Respondent.
9. The grounds of challenge by the State are as under: -
i. The Sessions Court failed to appreciate the enormity and gravity of
the offence, in which 25 innocent persons lost their lives due to
gross criminal negligence, reckless conduct and deliberate violation
of statutory safety norms on the part of the Respondent and his
partners.
ii. This being a second bail application, the Sessions Court failed to
notice the grounds on which the first application was rejected only
two months ago. The Court failed to record reasons for granting
bail despite the findings in the earlier rejection order.
iii. The finding that the Respondent is not a flight risk is factually
incorrect. The Respondent left the country on the very day the FIR
was registered, was declared absconding, was the subject of a non-
bailable warrant, proclamation proceedings, a Look Out Circular,
and a Blue Corner Notice, and was returned only by deportation.
Page 8 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
iv. The Sessions Court failed to appreciate that the filing of a charge
sheet does not dilute the seriousness of the allegations nor confer
any indefeasible right to bail, and erred in treating the charge
sheet's volume and the length of the anticipated trial as grounds for
release.
v. The Sessions Court failed to appreciate that the material
prosecution witnesses are employees and staff of the restaurant run
by the Respondent and are therefore susceptible to influence.
vi. The Sessions Court applied the principle of parity with the co-
accused Ajay Gupta without independently evaluating the conduct
and role of the Respondent. At the time of applying the parity
doctrine, the order granting bail to Ajay Gupta was itself under
challenge before this Court. This fact was brought to the notice of
the Sessions Court.
vii. Ms Kamat relied on the following decisions:
a. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan4,
b. Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar5,
c. Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P.6,
d. State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan7,
e. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee8,
4 (2004) 7 SCC 528.
5 (2020) 2 SCC 118.
6 (2022) 8 SCC 521.
7 2025 INSC 979 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702.
8 (2010) 14 SCC 496.
Page 9 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
f. Kushal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh9
g. Yug Kaushal Pathak v. Senior Inspector of Police10
h. Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Harabhai Bambhania11
i. Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.12
j. Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka13
k. N. Basurangan v. State of Kerala14
viii. She submitted that the impugned order is perverse and prayed that
the bail granted be cancelled.
10. Dr Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent,
defended the bail order and submitted as follows:
i. The Sessions Court enlarged the Respondent on bail since the charge
sheet was filed and hence custodial interrogation was not required.
The investigation is complete.
ii. He submitted that the exact cause of the fire remains unknown to date,
even after the filing of a charge sheet running into thousands of pages.
iii. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has reported no
supervening circumstances indicating a breach of the bail order.
iv. Dr Chandrachud submitted that the Respondent is not a flight risk
because his passport stands suspended and he has deep roots in society
9 2026 SCC OnLine HP 964.
10 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 18093.
11 (2017) 5 SCC 609.
12 (2024) 1 SCC 443.
13 (2017) 5 SCC 406.
14 (2022) 6 SCC 609.
Page 10 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
and an established business in India.
v. He submitted that the earlier rejection of bail was on the ground that
the investigation was then pending, and now the ground no longer
exists.
vi. An order granting bail is not to be interfered with, as the settled
threshold is a serious infirmity. He submitted that there is no serious
infirmity in the bail order.
vii. He submitted that the handling and use of cold pyro were wholly
under the control of the owner and employees of K-Dance and Event
Company.
viii. The prosecution has not arrested the individuals who are directly
responsible for the use of cold pyro, which is alleged to have caused
the fire.
ix. He drew my attention to some of the statements of witnesses recorded
by the police, stating that the Respondent was not responsible for the
incident, howsoever unfortunate the same was.
x. Dr Chandrachud placed reliance on the following decisions:
a. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI15,
b. P. Chidambaram v. CBI16,
15 (supra at pg. no. 7).
16 (supra at pg. no. 7).
Page 11 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
c. Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI17,
d. Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh18,
e. Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh19,
f. Chetan Kisan Patil v. State of Maharashtra20,
g. Puran v. Rambilas21
h. Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of
Maharashtra22
i. State v. Rakesh Goel23
j. Sushil Ansal v. State24
11. Heard both counsel for their respective parties and have perused the
record with their assistance.
ANALYSIS
12. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is necessary to discuss the
law governing the reversal of bail. A distinction must be drawn between an
application to cancel bail on account of supervening circumstances, such as
misuse of the liberty granted, and a challenge to the legality and propriety of
the order granting bail. In Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao
Sonvane and Others25, the Supreme Court observed:
“20. We make it clear that there is a clear distinction between
cancellation of bail on the considerations provided under Section
439(2) CrPC (corresponding Section 483(3) BNSS) and reversal of
17 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550.
18 (2020) 11 SCC 648.
19 SLP (Crl) No. 1059 of 2025.
20 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2403.
21 (2001) 6 SCC 338.
22 1964 SCC OnLine SC 162.
23 Crl. M.C. 3850/2019.
24 (2014) 6 SCC 173.
25 2026 SCC OnLine SC 291: 2026 INSC 181.
Page 12 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
an order of bail by the superior Court. While cancellation should
only be resorted to in cases where the accused misuses the liberty of
bail granted to him or tempers with the evidence. On the other
hand, the order granting bail can be interfered with by the superior
Court considering the nature and gravity of the offences; if the order
granting bail ignores the relevant material available on record or
that the same is based on extraneous considerations. The present is a
case in the second category.
21. This court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr.26, relying upon an earlier judgment in the case of
Ajwar v. Waseem27, observed as follows:
“18. A superficial application of bail parameters not only
undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks
weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat
the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of
justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts
must safeguard, lest we risk normalising a crime that
continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These
observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were
thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem
[Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri)
320] in the following paras : (SCC pp. 783-84, paras 26-28)
“26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal
offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like
the nature of the accusations made against the
accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to
have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the
role attributed to the accused, the criminal
antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence,
if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of
the accused being unavailable in the event bail is
granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings
and evading the courts of justice and the overall
desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer :
Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of
U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974];
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 :
26 (2025) 4 SCC 172.
27 (2024) 10 SCC 768.
Page 13 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] ; Masroor v. State of U.P.
[Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010)
1 SCC (Cri) 1368] ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,
(2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] ; Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.,
(2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] ; Anil
Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar
Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425] ; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar
[Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020)
1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]
27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted,
ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is
always open to interference by the superior court. If
there are serious allegations against the accused, even
if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an
order can be cancelled by the same Court that has
granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior
court if it transpires that the courts below have
ignored the relevant material available on record or
not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact
on the society resulting in such an order……”
[Emphasis supplied]”
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Victim ‘X’ v. State of Bihar & Anr .28,
while setting aside the order of granting bail to a person accused of
committing grave offences, inter alia, under the SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989, observed as under:
“24. It is trite that bail once granted should not be cancelled
ordinarily, but where the facts are so grave that they shake the
conscience of the Court; and where the release of the accused on
bail would have an adverse impact on the society, the Courts are
not powerless and are expected to exercise jurisdiction conferred by
law to cancel such bail orders so as to subserve the ends of justice.
The present one is precisely a case of such nature.”
28 2025 INSC 877.
Page 14 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
14. The test to be applied was also stated in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar29: -
“16. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate
court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand
on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the
cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is
tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary
exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether
the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified.”
15. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present
case, I now proceed to examine whether the reasons assigned by the Sessions
Court for grant of bail can withstand judicial scrutiny.
16. The learned Sessions Court has assigned the following reasons for
granting bail to the Respondent/Accused, as under:
i. The Sessions Court relied on the principle that ‘bail is the rule and
jail is the exception’ to hold that, since the charge sheet is filed,
continued incarceration is not required. The Court relied on the
decision in Sanjay Chandra30 to justify the grant of bail. The Court
held that, in the absence of any material indicating that the
Respondent is attempting to influence witnesses not to depose
against him, bail cannot be refused. The Court also relied on the
Supreme Court’s decision in P. Chidambaram31.
ii. Similarly, citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Maulvi Syed
Shad Kazmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh 32, the Sessions Court held that
29 (supra at pg. no. 9).
30 (supra at pg. no. 7).
31 (supra at pg. no. 7).
32 (supra at pg. no. 12).
Page 15 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
considering the alleged offence is not that serious or grave like
murder, dacoity, rape, etc., the Court is loath to deny bail to the
Respondent. Thus, the Sessions Court held that the alleged offence
is not grave and, in the absence of the possibility of the Respondent
absconding or tampering with the evidence, the interest of justice
would be served by enlarging the Respondent on bail.
iii. The Sessions Court took the view that since Section 105(II) and
Section 338 of BNS do not provide for a minimum sentence, the
offence alleged to have been committed by the Respondent does
not fall in the category of a heinous offence.
iv. Finally, the Sessions Court considers that, in view of the prevailing
docket explosion and the charge sheet being voluminous and
running into more than 4000 pages, with as many as 306 witnesses
and 13 accused arrayed in the trial, it is not likely to conclude the
trial in the near future. On these grounds, the Sessions Court
enlarged the Respondent on bail.
17. Admittedly, the Sessions Court, while rejecting the first bail which was
filed before the charge sheet, had considered the case in detail and had
recorded a finding that the case is heinous; the Respondent and his partners
were involved in manipulating documents to portray that they had a licence
to operate the restaurant; there was no NOC from the fire department; there
were no fire extinguishers in the restaurant, the exit and entry was only one
Page 16 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
narrow passage; the basement was congested; there was no proper
ventilation.
18. The Court had specifically found the restaurant to be a manifestly
hazardous environment, exposing both patrons and staff to a foreseeable risk
of fire and loss of life. The Court also relied on material showing that the
Respondent and his partners were well aware of the dangers of operating cold
pyro technic during belly dance performances, especially noting that the
material used in the construction of the roof was easily combustible. While
granting bail to the Respondent and his partners, 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.
19. It is important to note that merely holding the charge sheet as a
changed circumstance is not sufficient ground for the grant of bail. The
passages from the Sanjay Chandra33 case cited by the Sessions Court have
their relevance, but the same cannot be made applicable in every case for
grant of bail. The Supreme Court in Virupakshappa Gouda34 has held exactly
this. In Sanjay Chandra35, the accused was facing trial for offences under
Section 120-B, 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the IPC, and Section 13(2) and
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The factual matrix is quite
different. The nature of the crime and the manner in which it is committed
33 (supra at pg. no. 7).
34 (supra at pg. no. 10).
35 (supra at pg. no. 7).
Page 17 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
are to be seen. In Virupakshappa Gouda36, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“13. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find
that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it
amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-
sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the
prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that
after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials,
has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons.”
20. The material on record includes statements of various witnesses
recorded by the Police. The statement of electrician Mohammed Ansari
indicates that there was only one rear exit door at the restaurant, which was
always locked. The soundproof glass was installed at the Respondent’s and his
partners' instructions, which prevented smoke from escaping. The staff was
never provided with any training to handle fire incidents, and there was no
fire extinguisher equipment in the restaurant. There was also no emergency
exit to the kitchen. M. D. Juvel Ali, Food and Beverage Manager, Rahul Verma,
Captain in the restaurant, and other staff also said the same thing. Brian
Martins, the Artist in K-Dance events, and Mikhail Bukin stated that there was
no fire extinguisher nor any fire safety plan in the restaurant; the sparkler
machines were used during the belly dance performances, as per the
directions of the Respondent and his partners. Mr Judah D’Souza, a musician,
also stated that the narrow concrete bridge connecting the restaurant's deck
floor from the west side was blocked during the restaurant's operation by
locking the metal gate. As a result, customers could not exit during the fire.
Gavin Lobo, Bhavna Joshi, a tourist from U.P., and the other 49 tourists who
36 (supra at pg. no. 10).
Page 18 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
gave statements stated the same thing. It was repeatedly stated that there
were no fire extinguishers on the premises.
21. Shailesh Gawade, Station Fire Officer at the Fire Headquarters,
confirmed that the restaurant did not possess a valid NOC from the Fire
Department. Prathamesh Shankardas, Block Development Officer, stated that
the appropriate procedure was not followed in obtaining the trade licence and
other licences. Dharmendra Govekar, Panchayat Secretary, stated that the
structure itself was illegal, as it could not be allotted a house number because
it was in the middle of a salt pan. Pradeep Amonkar, a vendor of the premises,
stated that co-accused Mr Surendra Khosla, the owner of the premises,
prepared a forged letter stating that the vendors had handed over possession
of the entire resort to him; that Mr Khosla thereafter raised an illegal structure
from which the night club was run. This fact was known to the Respondent
and his partners. Sanjay Metre also confirmed that the Respondent and his
brother used to visit the restaurant and direct Ravi Verma, the supervisor, to
carry out interior work. Akhtar Ali, Interior Designer, also confirmed that the
Respondent made no fire safety provisions. Mohd Amir Raza, the Carpenter,
affirmed that the ceiling was constructed with bamboo-mat-like material as
per the design given to them by Mr Ravi and his team, and that he was not
directed to install a fire extinguisher or fire safety systems.
22. Most importantly, Akash Sethi, the sound and light provider, stated that
he had informed the Respondent and his brother to remove the tin sheets
Page 19 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
from the roof and install two-inch-thick puff panels. However, they had
refused. He also said that water was seeping from the walls and that there
was four inches of stagnant water on the floor. Other witnesses also stated
that the Respondent and his other partners were aware of all this.
23. Dinesh Khera, Manager, stated that he received the authority letter
from Respondent and his brother on WhatsApp. Forged documents were also
found at Mr Khera’s hotel premises. Material on record also indicates that the
structure was unauthorised, which fact was known to the Respondent and his
partners. They operated the restaurant knowing full well the risks of
conducting fire displays inside the restaurant without adequate safety
measures. This led to the incident of fire leading to the death of 25 innocent
persons, as most of them were unable to exit because of the structure. Many
others were injured.
24. The Sessions Court's finding is that although Section 105, Part II may
apply, no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence; hence, the offence
is not heinous; therefore, the Respondent is entitled to be released on 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
Page 20 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
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, in its previous Order rejecting bail, considered this and, while
allowing the second application, failed to record any changed circumstances
that came to light after the filing of the charge sheet. 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.
25. In Kushal Singh37, the Supreme Court discussed what constitutes a
change and observed that a change must be substantial, have a direct impact
on the earlier decision, and not be merely cosmetic changes of little or no
consequence. Between the two orders, there was a gap of only two months,
and it is nobody’s case that drastic changes took place during these months
necessitating the release of the Respondent on bail. Further, in Kalyan
Chandra38, the Supreme Court held that where an earlier bail application is
rejected, the Court must consider the rejection and then consider why the
subsequent bail application should be allowed. It was held as under:
“12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected
there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application
for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications
have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the
opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give
specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent
37 (supra at pg. no.10).
38 (supra at pg. No 9).
Page 21 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
application for bail should be granted.”
26. The decision in Kalyan Chandra39 is equally relevant on two grounds
on which the impugned order rests, namely the period of custody undergone
and the prospect of a long trial: -
“14. … the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of
incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on
bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near
future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would
be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the
offence alleged is severe…”
27. Thus, 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,
particularly since the trial Court had remanded the Respondent to judicial
custody. Such reasoning, in my view, is untenable, inasmuch as it glossed over
the conduct of the Respondent indicating his complicity in the offence. The
Sessions Court ought to have taken note of and/or considered the material
collected during the investigation even to find out whether there is any
material collected during the investigation involving the Respondent for the
serious offence as alleged and whether it is a fit case to enlarge him on bail or
not.
28. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that while considering as to
whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal
offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the
39 (supra at pg. no. 9).
Page 22 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is
alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed
to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are
released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event
bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.
29. In Yug Kaushal Pathak40, the Bombay High Court, in a similar case of
fire, holding that when the material on record clearly indicates that the
incident resulting in several deaths was caused on account of lapses of the
accused, including unauthorised construction, absence of permissions, no
firefighting systems, no emergency exit routes, etc., had rejected bail to the
accused therein. The offence alleged against the Respondent and his partners
in the present case is similar and serious. The Sessions Court was not justified
in observing that the offence is not as heinous as murder or dacoity.
30. Another ground for grant of bail to the Respondent and his partners
was the voluminous charge sheet, 306 potential witnesses and 13 accused in
all, which made it unlikely that the trial will conclude in the near future. This
finding also cannot be sustained. In Sri Darshan41, the Supreme Court held as
under:
“20.4. Filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify
grant of bail.
40 (supra at pg. no. 10)
41 (supra at pg. no. 9)
Page 23 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
20.4.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not
confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of a
prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the
incriminating material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of
tampering with witnesses.
*****
20.4.6. In the present case, the High Court failed to engage with the
incriminating material collected during investigation, despite the
seriousness of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the allegation of
conspiracy. The mere filing of the charge-sheet, the existence of a long list
of witnesses, or the possibility of delay in trial, cannot, by themselves,
constitute valid reasons to dilute the gravity of the offence or to disregard
the case put forth by the prosecution. As repeatedly held by this Court,
such factors are not standalone grounds for the grant of bail in heinous
offences involving murder. The reasoning adopted by the High Court to
justify the grant of bail is, therefore, contrary to settled legal principles.”
31. The finding upon flight risk is contrary to the record. The Respondent
had fled to Phuket, Thailand, and was apprehended only after the issuance of
a non-bailable warrant, proclamation, and Blue Corner Notice, and was later
deported to India. None of these matters is addressed in the reasons.
32. The Sessions Court held that, since co-accused Ajay Gupta was granted
bail, the Respondent herein also deserves to be enlarged on bail on the basis
of parity. The Sessions Court failed to appreciate that Ajay Gupta's bail order
was also under challenge before this Court. The Sessions Court has not
recorded any finding regarding the roles attributed to Ajay Gupta and the
present Respondent. There is a clear non-application of mind.
33. 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
Page 24 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
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. The material on record is sufficient to prima
facie point the arrow of intent towards the Respondent and his partners. Each
partner shrugged off his individual responsibility and indulged only in a
blame game. The Respondent's arguments were based on delegated authority:
he had engaged individuals to run the restaurant, as he was operating as
many as twenty restaurants in the country, making it impossible for him to
personally oversee the Birch restaurant. 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.
34. The Sessions Court also relied on the submission on behalf of the
Respondent that the cause of fire is not yet crystallised. The Sessions Court
overlooked the report of the Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services,
Government of Goa dated 5th February 2026, which clearly records that the
findings of the demonstration seen alongside the video of the fire incident
may have been triggered by fire sparklers used in the club, although the final
FSL report is awaited.
Page 25 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
35. The Supreme Court in M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Govt.
of NCT of Delhi42 has held that denial of bail does not mean whittling down
pro-liberty principles, but the Courts must be cognisant of applying settled
principles of law to the facts of specific cases. No precedent operates in a
vacuum and must be correlated to the extant facts.
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the preceding analysis
demonstrates that the case at hand requires deeper scrutiny beyond the
conventional principles governing the subject. The order granting bail to the
Respondent indicates an improper exercise of discretion by the Sessions
Court. There is no application of mind in enlarging the Respondent on bail.
Surprisingly, the Sessions Court has not even directed periodic attendance
before the Investigating Officer; nor has it directed the Respondent to seek the
trial Court’s permission to travel within India.
37. In these circumstances, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 1 st
April 2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, North Goa,
Mapusa, releasing the Respondent on bail, deserves to be quashed and set
aside, and it is accordingly quashed and set aside.
38. The Respondent shall surrender before the Sessions Court within a
period of two weeks from the date of uploading the present order. The
application is allowed.
39. It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are
42 2025 INSC 1181 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2079.
Page 26 of 27
18th August 2026
CRMAM-11-2026.odt
prima facie and confined to the correctness of the impugned Order and shall
not affect the trial.
40. It is made clear that after the surrender, the Respondent is at liberty to
move an appropriate application for bail before the trial Court afresh and the
trial Court may consider it on its own merits and in accordance with law and
after taking into consideration the relevant material collected during the
course of investigation which is part of the charge sheet.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)
Andreza ereira Digitally signed by Andreza ereira
Date: 2026.08.18 19:22:29 +05'30'
Page 27 of 27
18th August 2026
Checking your session…