Mumbai: Yug Tuli, the co-owner of Mojo’s Bistro, also known as Duke Tuli, filed an anticipatory bail application (ABA) in the sessions court, questioning the fire department’s report, which stated that the blaze that gutted his pub and the 1 Above at the Kamala Mills compound on December 29 killing 14 people, had originated from his pub.
His lawyer stood by their stand that the fire had originated from the 1 Above pub. However, the court has adjourned the hearing for the day after tomorrow without granting any relief.
Tuli moved the pre-arrest bail application on Monday, which came up for hearing on Tuesday. His lawyer Shyam Diwani argued before sessions’ judge A. L. Yawalkar that the report submitted by the fire department is influenced.
Advocate Diwani challenged the findings of the report submitted by the fire department saying that it is based on claims made on social media and the department has neither recorded statements of any person nor conducted any enquiry to come to the conclusion that the fire started from his pub.
He also said that the report should have been given to the police but instead was made available to everybody, even before it reached the police.
Advocate Diwani also argued that authorities relied upon unverified posts on social media, which according to him, “were apparently systematically being posted and pushed by friends of the absconding owners of 1 Above Restaurant.” According to him, attempts were made to somehow portray that the fire originated from Mojo’s Bistro.
“This goes on to prove that fire authorities somehow are making all efforts to save 1 Above,” alleged Tuli’s application.
Tuli claimed that Bistro had obtained all the requisite permissions that included permission from the fire department.
According to Tuli, there were around 40 guests in their restaurant and none of their guests sustained any serious injury.
The lawyer also submitted that Tuli’s name was not there in the FIR and he is not actively involved in the day to day business of the restaurant, but is just one of the partners.
However, the judge deferred the hearing of this ABA for January 11, without granting any interim relief to applicant.
