Air India ‘urination’ incident: Delhi court reserves order on bail plea of Shankar Mishra

India

oi-Deepika S

The
court
reserved
the
order
on
the
plea,
which
said
the
act
was
not
driven
by
sexual
desire
and
that
it
was
not
aimed
at
outraging
the
complainant’s
modesty.

New
Delhi,
Jan
11:
Delhi’s
Patiala
House
court
on
Wednesday
reserved
its
order
on
bail
for
the
accused
Shankar
Mishra,
accused
of
urinating
a
woman
co-passenger
on
an
Air
India
flight.

During
the
hearing,
Delhi
Police
opposed
bail
plea
of
Shankar
Mishra,
saying
if
he
enlarged
on
bail,
he
can
influence
the
complainant.

Metropolitan
Magistrate
Komal
Garg
reserved
the
order
on
the
plea,
which
said
the
act
was
not
driven
by
sexual
desire
and
that
it
was
not
aimed
at
outraging
the
complainant’s
modesty.

Another
magisterial
court
had
sent
Mishra
to
14-day
judicial
remand
on
Saturday,
denying
police
his
custody.

“My
client
has
clearly
and
willingly
participated
in
any
inquiries
related
to
the
alleged
event,
with
the
intention
to
establish
his
innocence
and
will
continue
to
act
in
this
bona
fide
manner
and
assist
the
police
in
the
investigation,”
said
Advocate
Manu
Sharma,
lawyer
of
Shankar
Mishra.

Furthermore,
Sharma
argued
that
Mishra
was
already
bearing
the
consequences.

“I
am
already
bearing
the
consequences
of
this
case.
I
have
been
sacked
from
a
respectable
job…I’ll
also
open
the
argument
that
I
am
not
a
flight
risk,”
Sharma
was
quoted
in
a

report.

Public
Prosecutor
representing
Delhi
Police
submitted
that
statement
of
the
complainant
under
164
has
been
recorded
along
with
several
others.
More
statements
are
yet
to
be
recorded
soon.

The
incident
took
place
in
the
business
class
of
the
Air
India
flight
from
New
York
to
Delhi
on
November
26
last
year.

The
police
have
filed
a
case
under
Indian
Penal
Code
sections
294
(obscene
act
in
a
public
place),
354
(assault
or
criminal
force
to
woman
with
intent
to
outrage
her
modesty),
509
(word,
gesture
or
act
intended
to
insult
the
modesty
of
a
woman)
and
510
(misconduct
in
public
by
a
drunken
person).

The
provisions
of
the
Aircraft
Rules
too
have
been
invoked
in
this
case.