The Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg reserved an order regarding Shankar Mishra’s bail application. Photo Credit: AP
Shankar Mishra was the man accused of Urinating on an elderly passenger on an Air India flight. He told a Delhi court that his act was neither motivated by sexual desire nor intended to outrage the complainant’s modesty as he sought bail.
Counsel for the complainant opposed Mr. Mishra’s bail application, saying she was being threatened.
“I am constantly receiving threats and messages. The father of the accused sent me a message saying that ‘karma would hit you’, and then deleted it. They are sending me messages and then deleting them. This must stop… Air India, instead of seperating the complainant and accused, tried to mediate this crime,” counsel stated.
The Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg reserved his order regarding the bail application of Mr. Mishra.
“Nobody should go through such a thing. It was disgusting. It was a terrible thing. It was horrible… But, was it sexual desire? No. No. While fervently requesting bail, the counsel for the accused stated that no.
He said that the driving force behind the incident wasn’t “guided by passion.” That was me, man. “And the complainant’s original complaint did not make that claim.” Mr. Mishra’s counsel spoke of his misery after the sexy incident on the November 26th flight from New York City to New Delhi.
“He’s already been hurt. He was fired from his job. He is not a flight hazard [at risk of fleeing ]… There was no allegation that he was a menace running around with knives.”
The Delhi police opposed bail application. They stated that it was highly probable that the complainant would influence him if he was released on bail since he comes from an influential and wealthy background.
Police told the court that the mother and sister of the complainant tried to contact him.
Also, the police informed the court that it had filed a revision petition to contest the denial of custody to the accused.
It stated that “many witnesses are to being examined, including captain and cabin crew.”
The matter will likely be taken up by a sessions court later in the day.
In the meantime, the counsel representing the complainant alleged that the accused offended her and had the audacity of saying she was not a victim. I had requested FIR. He was influential and the FIR was not recorded.”
He said that the complainant was unable to remain in Bengaluru.
“They are threatening me. Her counsel claimed that they threatened me not only with messages, but also by coming to my home.”
However, the counsel for the accused contested the claim that the complainant made of a threat.
“Her [the victim woman] son-in law, a New York-based professor wrote me a mail stating that I would be paying the full airfare. I had already paid for dry cleaning. After receiving the mail from my son-in-law, I received the money [which the accused had paid as compensation] back.”
After hearing all the arguments, the court reserved its judgment on the bail application.
On Saturday, a magisterial court sent Mr. Mishra on a 14-day judicial detention. This denied him custody.