Delhi Court adjourns bail plea of Shankar Mishra, accused in Air India urinating on passenger case

Express News Service

NEW DELHI: A Delhi Court on Friday adjourned to January 30 the bail utility of Shankar Mishra, who was arrested for allegedly peeing on his co-passenger, a septuagenarian lady, on board an Air India flight in an inebriated situation.

At Patiala House Courts within the nationwide capital, earlier than Additional Sessions Judge, Harjyot Singh Bhalla, the complainant lady’s counsel mentioned the copy of the bail utility was not supplied to him.

It was additionally taken be aware by the decide that the investigating officer was not current for the listening to.

During the course of the listening to, Mishra’s counsel Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta opposed the adjournment for the subsequent date and pleaded to record at 2 pm on Friday.

However, the courtroom adjourned the listening to for subsequent Monday (January 30).

Mishra, who’s at the moment in judicial custody, knocked on the doorways of the courtroom once more on Wednesday in search of bail towards the sooner 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 ample to outrage the modesty of a girl. 

On January 13, in a u-turn within the case, Mishra had advised a Delhi courtroom that he didn’t urinate on the co-passenger lady onboard the Air India flight and she or he urinated on herself, a contradiction to his earlier assertion during which he advised the courtroom that he’s not working away from the alleged act which was ‘obscene.’

The alleged incident had occurred on November 26 final yr when a drunk Mishra walked as much as the lady’s seat within the enterprise class on an Air India New York-New Delhi flight, uncovered himself, and urinated on her.

Earlier in the course of the arguments, Mishra’s counsel mentioned his act was not pushed by sexual need nor aimed toward outraging the complainant’s modesty.

Mishra’s counsel identified that Section 354 offers with sexual harassment and questioned the relevance of the Act within the current case.

The complainant’s counsel, nonetheless, opposed Mishra’s bail utility, claiming she was being threatened.

NEW DELHI: A Delhi Court on Friday adjourned to January 30 the bail utility of Shankar Mishra, who was arrested for allegedly peeing on his co-passenger, a septuagenarian lady, on board an Air India flight in an inebriated situation.
At Patiala House Courts within the nationwide capital, earlier than Additional Sessions Judge, Harjyot Singh Bhalla, the complainant lady’s counsel mentioned the copy of the bail utility was not supplied to him.
It was additionally taken be aware by the decide that the investigating officer was not current for the listening to.
During the course of the listening to, Mishra’s counsel Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta opposed the adjournment for the subsequent date and pleaded to record at 2 pm on Friday.
However, the courtroom adjourned the listening to for subsequent Monday (January 30).
Mishra, who’s at the moment in judicial custody, knocked on the doorways of the courtroom once more on Wednesday in search of bail towards the sooner 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 ample to outrage the modesty of a girl. 
On January 13, in a u-turn within the case, Mishra had advised a Delhi courtroom that he didn’t urinate on the co-passenger lady onboard the Air India flight and she or he urinated on herself, a contradiction to his earlier assertion during which he advised the courtroom that he’s not working away from the alleged act which was ‘obscene.’
The alleged incident had occurred on November 26 final yr when a drunk Mishra walked as much as the lady’s seat within the enterprise class on an Air India New York-New Delhi flight, uncovered himself, and urinated on her.
Earlier in the course of the arguments, Mishra’s counsel mentioned his act was not pushed by sexual need nor aimed toward outraging the complainant’s modesty.
Mishra’s counsel identified that Section 354 offers with sexual harassment and questioned the relevance of the Act within the current case.
The complainant’s counsel, nonetheless, opposed Mishra’s bail utility, claiming she was being threatened.