A Delhi court noted on Monday that the witnesses named by police in a case against Shankar Mishra, who is accused of peeing on a woman on an Air India flight from New York to Delhi, are not testifying in the prosecution’s favor. The court also reserved its decision on Mishra’s bail application.
Image Source: Business Today
Bail Application of Accused Reserved by Delhi HC
Further Sessions Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla heard the arguments from the attorneys representing the accused and the prosecution before announcing that he will rule on Mishra’s request for release tomorrow. When opposing the bail application, Delhi police added that Mishra was originally resisting arrest since he had turned off his mobile phones and provided his office address. The Delhi police further stated that when they went to his Bombay home, they were informed that he was in Bengaluru. He has located in Bengaluru thanks to his phone’s IMEI number.
Image Source: Livelaw
“The witnesses you (the investigation agency) have named are not testifying in your favor,” the statement reads. The complainant’s statement and Ila Banerjee’s (the witness’) statement conflict, the court said throughout the hearing. Police argued against the bail request, claiming that “India has been defamed internationally because of the incident.” The court responded, “It may be disgusting, but that is another thing; let’s not get into it. Let’s see how the law approaches it.
Additionally, the prosecution asserted that Mishra had turned off all of his mobile phones and that he had not cooperated with the investigation. The prosecution said that the accused learned of the FIR in the case “via media” when the judge questioned how the accused learned of it. The prosecutor was also questioned by the judge over how the media became aware of the FIR. It was widespread, the prosecution informed the jury, and “he might sway the witnesses. Even after the FIR was filed, he got in touch with the victim. The judge then inquired as to what the accused had written in the message, to which the complainant’s attorney replied, “Intimidating communications were conveyed.”
Image Source: SiasatImage
Mishra requested relief by arguing that a magisterial court had initially rejected the bail because the probe was still ongoing. “Now that it has been completed, more crew members and witnesses have been questioned.” Senior attorney Ramesh Gupta, who is representing the accused, added that they also requested a refund for the ticket but made no further demands against him. He continued: “The charges against Mishra were all bailable.”
On January 11, a magisterial court refused bail to Mishra, stating that the behavior was extremely unpleasant and nasty, had horrified the public, and needed to be denounced.
On January 4, Delhi Police filed an FIR against him under many sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in response to a complaint the woman made to Air India.
Mishra was apprehended by the Delhi police with the aid of Bengaluru police in the city’s neighborhood, Sanjay.
Suggested Reading: CFO Of The Adani Group: The Founders Are Not Involved In Speculation
