High Court Cancels Bail for Restaurant Owners Amid 25 Deaths Probe

The High Court on Tuesday cancelled the bail granted to Gaurav Luthra, Saurabh Luthra and Ajay Gupta, directing them to surrender before police within two weeks.

Bail Cancelled Amid Deadly Fire Probe

Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale said the order granting bail indicates an improper exercise of discretion and that the Sessions Court has not even directed periodic attendance before the Investigating Officer.

“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.

High Court Slams Sessions Court for Simplistic Approach

The High Court said viewing the offence as “not that heinous” reflected an oversimplified understanding and that the Respondent and his partners, prima facie, deliberately ignored all safety norms while operating the restaurant.

“A plain reading of the impugned order reveals not a word on the enormity of the offence. The seriousness of the crime should never be diminished. 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.

Blame Game: High Court Slams Restaurant Owners for Lack of Responsibility

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

Read More: BJP Names Strong Organizational Hands to Lead Election Campaigns Across India

“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.

High Court Rejects Sessions Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail

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.

“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 eatery was running without the necessary permits. The Respondent and his partners could not procure licences because the structure itself was unauthorised.

High Court Slams Sessions Court for Lack of Substantial Material

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.

High Court Rejects Sessions Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail

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 “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.