NEW DELHI, Dec. 12 -- A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed the transit anticipatory bail plea filed by Gaurav and Saurabh Luthra in connection with the Goa fire tragedy case, observing that the offence was one which was grave and serious in nature where 25 persons had lost their lives. Earlier, they were detained by the authorities in Thailand where they had fled immediately after the tragic incident on December 6 night. An Interpol Blue Corner notice was issued on December 9 following a request from the Goa police routed through the CBI. As soon as the news of the detention of the Luthra brothers emerged, pictures with handcuffs holding their passports started appearing on social media. The order on Thursday was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Vandana of Rohini court. The order noted, ". conduct of the applicant and the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, which are grave and serious, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in his favour". The Luthra brothers, represented by Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Tanvir Ahmed Mir, sought a four-week transit anticipatory bail, arguing that there was imminent threat to their safety on returning to India and they wanted bail only to approach courts in Goa for further relief. The court said that the accused had failed to show the basis for apprehending a threat to their life. "The action taken by the investigating authority or by the Court, as per law, can't be said to be an apprehension of threat to life," the judge said. The accused's counsels had also contended that Gaurav had neurological issues while Saurabh had Epilepsy, however, court said that the counsels had themselves refuted the same by claiming that the medical conditions were not such that he could not move to another country to pursue their business. The court said the medical documents produced by the accused were old and did not reflect any serious medical condition which may entitle the accused persons any relief. Questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the case, the court observed that while the accused were admittedly in Thailand's Phuket, it remained unexplained as to why they had not approached the competent courts in Goa where the incident took place. On the rules flouted by the nightclub, the court said that the documents placed on record, such as the trade license and lease deed, have already expired. The court also noted that the accused persons had concealed the fact that they had left for Thailand on December 7 by booking the tickets at 1:17 AM and boarding a flight of 5:20 AM, observing that they claimed that they left on December 6 instead. The judge also stated that denying anticipatory bail to the applicants and allowing them to move the appropriate jurisdictional court of Goa, would not cause irremediable or irreversible prejudice to them. "The nature of offence, prima facie, is grave and serious in nature where 25 people have lost their life," the court said. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhinav Mukherji, appearing for Goa, through a status report, argued that the nightclub only had one entry and exit point and a fire show was held which led to the incident. Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava, assisting Goa's counsel, submitted, "You have a club registered in Goa and you have already shifted yourself at a safe place. Luthra's counsels had argued that the primary relief being sought in the matter is that both the brothers be allowed to come back to the country from Thailand, where they are currently located for a business trip, and safely approach the courts of Goa for subsequent relief, without being arrested at Delhi airport. The counsels had submitted, "An anticipatory bail for a period of four weeks is being sought and the applicant undertakes not to tamper with evidence. I just want to come back and take my legal remedies". On the allegations laid out against the accused in the FIR, the counsels said that it has been claimed by the Goa Police that accused were owners of the said nightclub and caused serious injuries and death of several persons due to dysfunctional fire safety system, including staff members, who were inside the premises. Contending the accusations, they said that the brothers were in fact, licensees of the club and not the owners. "Going through the agreements, I am the licensee and the owner is someone else.the fire system has been bought from another place and I can't repair it without the permission of the owners," the counsel argued before the court. The counsels further listed out the several licenses acquired by the nightclub which had been cleared by the state government. They also pointed out that since the brothers were merely licensees who were situated in Delhi and not involved in the day-to-day activities of the club, which were being handled by the managerial team, members of which have already been taken into custody by the Goa Police, culpability could not be attributed to them. Luthra had argued, "The establishment runs with managers of the local level. You want to prosecute those sitting in Delhi.a lady used a firework while performing and according to them (Goa Police), it caused a tragedy. We understand the lives lost but liberty has to be granted to them". Senior Advocate Mir had told the court that the Luthra brothers ran various restaurants across India, and did not manage day-to-day operations at all those franchises. A total of 1500 persons are employed at their chain of outlets, he submitted. He had argued, "A corporate entity with limited liability in so far as whatever has happened in a restaurant cannot be directly attributed to them by any stretch of vicarious liability". Highlighting the threat faced by the accused persons, Mir had said, "There is a direct threat to my safety. I will be lynched in Goa. My other restaurants have been bulldozed straight away.We will join the investigation.I shall be prosecuted but not persecuted"....