A Delhi court on Wednesday denied bail to Shankar Mishra, accused of urinating on a woman co-passenger on an Air India flight from New York to Delhi. Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg dismissed Mishra’s bail application, saying it was not appropriate to release him on bail at this stage.
Mishra’s bail application said that he has “no criminal antecedents and is not in a position to influence the witnesses”. His bail plea also added that the act was not driven by sexual desire and that it was not aimed at outraging the complainant’s modesty.
Garg said, “The alleged act of accused of relieving himself upon the complainant is utterly disgusting and repulsive. The alleged act in itself is sufficient to outrage the modesty of any woman.”
The Delhi court further held, “Egregious conduct of the accused has shocked the civic consciousness and needs to be deprecated.”
Garg also noted that Mishra had failed to join the investigation even after a notice under section 41A Cr PC was issued to him, adding that his presence could be secured only upon the execution of NBWs. “Therefore, the conduct of the accused does not inspire confidence,” the judge said.
It further added that Mishra has tried contacting the victim and the possibility of the accused influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out.
Another magisterial court had sent the accused to 14-day judicial remand on Saturday.
What Mishra’s Bail Plea Stated
In Mishra’s bail plea accessed by News18, the accused said that he is shocked to see the complaint by the victim’s daughter and her text. He added that his arrest is “illegal” and “violates Arnesh Kumar’s judgment”.
Mishra’s advocate Manu Sharma submitted that in the FIR filed, only one non-bailable offence is mentioned and others are bailable offences, ANI reported.
Stressing on the word “intent”, Sharma read section 354 of the IPC (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage modesty) during the hearing. “The unzipping is the major problem…but when someone unzips himself in public space, there is a driving intent for that…first consider the age of the lady and the accused, she’s 72 and I’m in my 30s,” he said on behalf of Mishra.
“In [this] case, I am sloshed, I couldn’t control my drink but whether this unzipping was for sexual desire…the most important point is the driving intent,” he said.
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.”
What is Arnesh Kumar Judgment
The case of ‘Arnesh kumar v. State of Bihar’ (2014) is an important case in criminal law where court laid down guidelines for arresting a person. The case came in backdrop of domestic problems when a wife filed report against husband accusing him for demanding dowry.
After discussing the provisions related to safeguard against arrest, the court laid down guidelines to be followed in arrest.
• The court directed that all the state governments should instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, CrPC.
• All police officers should be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention.
• The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention.
Air India ‘Pee’ Case: In Brief
Shankar Mishra was arrested in Bengaluru on Saturday and charged with offences including sexual harassment and public misconduct. He was then brought to the national capital and produced before a local court, which sent him to judicial custody for 14 days.
The incident took place on 26 November in the business class cabin of a New York-Delhi flight. The accused Shankar Mishra was allegedly drunk when he apparently urinated on a 72-year-old woman. The case, however, came to the fore only last week when the woman filed a complaint.
“My clothes, shoes and bag were completely soaked in urine,” the woman wrote in her complaint to Chandrasekaran. The woman said she asked the crew for a change of seat, but was told that nothing was available and was instead offered a small seat used by staff.
The woman described the flight as the most “traumatic” of her life, and said that the airline only issued her a partial refund of her ticket. Her ordeal was supported by a US doctor named Sugata Bhattacharjee, who was sitting next to Mishra on the flight.
Mishra was thereafter fired from his job at US banking firm Wells Fargo. In a statement issued on Sunday, Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran said the airline should have been swifter in its response, amid criticism on how Air India handled the incident.
His statement came a day after Air India chief executive Campbell Wilson expressed “regret” and “pain” over its customers suffering due to “the condemnable acts of their co-passengers”.
After the incident, Air India formed an internal committee to investigate the complaint against Mishra. Two weeks later, it imposed a 30-day interim travel ban on him. Air India has also de-rostered a pilot and four member of the cabin crew.
Last week, the DGCA issued notices to the officials and crew of the flight, saying they had not complied with its rules for handling an unruly passenger on board. It also said the crew’s conduct had been “unprofessional”.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment