Mumbai Kamala Mills fire: No interim relief for co-owner of Mojo’s Yug Tuli

Mumbai: Yug Tuli, the co-owner of Mojo’s, has been denied interim relief by the Sessions Court. Judge A L Yavalkar, also allowed the application of Rakesh Lakdawala, husband of Parul, who died in the fire at Mojo Bistro and 1Above on December 29.

The court said it was not granting Tulli any interim protection till January 11. The police have already arrested Yug Pathak, a son of an IPS officer. Both have been booked under various sections of the IPC. The court also directed the prosecution to file its response on the anticipatory bail plea filed by Tuli on Monday.

The family members of one of the fire tragedy victims has also filed an intervention application, opposing Tuli’s bail plea. Dewani has contested the manner in which the FIR was filed against Tuli. “We strongly object the manner in which the FIR was filed. The FIR was filed the same day of complaint. Police did no investigations before filing the FIR and did not do proper verification. They arrested Yug Pathak, the partner of my client and now they want to arrest him,” said advocate Shyam Dewani.

Also Read: CBI should probe bookie Vishal Karia’s relations with Mojo’s owners: Congress MLA Nitesh Rane

In its preliminary probe report, the Mumbai Fire Brigade had said the blaze had possibly started at Mojo’s Bistro due to the flying embers of a hookah. Dewani raised concerns regarding the authenticity and veracity of fire report pointing to the leaks and flaws to the court. “It is shocking and amusing, a confidential report had been forwarded to all and made public before it even was sent to the Mumbai police. People connected with 1Above had uploaded it on Facebook and tweeted about it and saying 1Above was exonerated. The entire report is based on eyewitness accounts and someone alleging. Without any proper investigation and verification, it is amusing. From declaring three of them as absconding, suddenly the police have blamed Mojo’s owners,” stated Dewani. It is suspected that the patrons killed in the fire were dining at 1Above.

Tuli in his petition admitted to the fire being an unfortunate accident and that he rushed to the spot but was prevented from meeting his staff. His petition states clearly, the fire started at 1Above and none of the patrons in their restaurant were even gravelly injured. “There was an unfortunate incidence of fire in the adjoining restaurant namely ‘1 Above’…. “Applicant is concerned, by the grace of the God, although around 40 guests were present in the restaurant when the fire broke out, none of them sustained even minor injury.”

The entire focus has shifted from pinning down persons responsible for the deaths of citizens to blaming each other. Right at the beginning the statements from both pub owners were blaming each other.