Police Trash Luthra Brothers Thailand Work Claim in Court

In a dramatic turn in the Goa nightclub fire case, investigating authorities have strongly refuted the claims made by Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra that they were in Thailand on legitimate business when the deadly blaze occurred. The brothers, who own the now-infamous Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub in North Goa, had sought anticipatory bail in a Delhi court and asserted their foreign trip was work-related. However, Goa Police told the court they were misled about key details of their departure and involvement in the ongoing probe.

The nightclub fire on December 6 tragically killed 25 people, including staff and tourists, triggering nationwide outrage and intense scrutiny of safety standards at entertainment venues. Shortly after the incident, immigration records showed that the Luthra brothers left India on December 7 for Phuket, Thailand, raising serious questions about their intentions during the early stages of the investigation.

Goa Police argued in court that the brothers failed to cooperate with investigators and provided incorrect information about their travel timeline. “They have no business in Thailand,” prosecutors said, noting contradictions between the Luthras’ statements and official records. Authorities assert that the duo left the country just hours after the fire erupted a period when critical evidence and testimonies could have been secured.

The prosecution’s stance effectively undermines the narrative put forward by the Luthra brothers, who claimed their trip was purely professional. Goa Police described the delay in cooperation and the inaccurate travel claims as evidence of “misleading the court and authorities,” which they argue should disqualify the brothers from receiving the legal protections they are seeking.

This line of argument aligns with investigators’ wider efforts to piece together how the blaze spread so quickly and why safety protocols may have been bypassed at the club. Officials believe that understanding the owners’ actions in the hours and days after the incident is key to assigning responsibility and ensuring justice for the victims.

The court has yet to decide on the anticipatory bail plea, but law enforcement’s strong opposition marks a significant escalation in the legal battle surrounding the case. It also reflects broader concerns about accountability among business owners and operators of crowded public venues in India, especially when catastrophic loss of life is involved.

With public sentiment sharply critical and courts closely watching developments, the outcome of this bail hearing will likely shape the next phase of the investigation including whether the Luthra brothers must return to face questioning in India or remain beyond the court’s immediate reach.