Representational image of Air India. (File photo | PTI)
NEW DELHI: A Delhi Court on Monday reserved for January 31 the order on the bail application of Shankar Mishra, who was arrested for allegedly peeing on his co-passenger, a septuagenarian woman, on board an Air India flight in an inebriated condition.
Hearing the arguments of parties, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, Harjyot Singh Bhalla said that what Mishra has allegedly done is disgusting but the court is bound to follow the law.
“It may be disgusting; that is another matter but let us not get into that. Let’s go into how the law deals with it,” the court said and reserved the order on the matter to be decided and delivered on Tuesday.
During the course of the hearing, cops told the court that the incident defamed India internationally.
On January 27, the same judge adjourned the matter after the complainant’s advocate Ankur Mahindro informed the court that he had not been handed a copy of the bail plea and also took note of the absence of the Investigation officer.
Moreover, the Public Prosecutor (PP) opposed Mishra’s bail contending that the latter initially did not cooperate during the investigation and had absconded with his mobile phones switched off.
Cops also argued that the accused threatened the complainant. The judge observed that the witnesses named by the prosecution “are not deposing in your (police) favour”.
ALSO READ | Air India tweaks alcohol policy after 'pee gate' scandal
Mishra, who is currently in judicial custody, knocked on the doors of the court again last Wednesday seeking bail against the earlier order of Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg, who had rejected his plea, saying that the alleged act of accused of relieving himself upon the complainant is “utterly disgusting and repulsive” and the act itself is sufficient to outrage the modesty of a woman.
On January 13, in a u-turn in the case, Mishra had told a Delhi court that he did not urinate on the co-passenger woman onboard the Air India flight and she urinated on herself, a contradiction to his earlier statement in which he told the court that he is not running away from the alleged act, which was ‘obscene.’
