Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg made the reservation on Shankar Mishra’s bail application. File
Shankar Mishra the man accused of urinating upon an elderly female passenger on an Air India Flight told a Delhi Court on January 11 that his act wasn’t motivated by sexual desire or aimed to upset the complainant’s modesty.
The counsel for the complainant, who claimed she was being threatened, opposed Mr. Mishra’s bail request.
“I receive threats and messages all the time. I was sent a message by the father of the accused, which said “karma will strike you” and then deleted that message. They keep sending me messages, then they delete it. This has to stop… Air India tried to mediate crime instead of seperating complainant from accused,” the counsel stated.
Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg was not able to grant bail to Mr. Mishra.
“Nobody should have a similar experience. It was revolting. I feel sorry for the lady. It was terrible… Was the unzipping intended to satisfy sexual desire? No. Did any of this act aim to outrage her modesty? The counsel for the accused denied it, but fervently appealed for bail.
He stated that the driving force behind this incident was not “guided only by lust.” It was not me! The complainant’s complaint at that time does not claim this.” Mr. Mishra was referred to by his counsel for his predicament after the bizarre incident on the November 26th flight between New York and New Delhi.
“He has already suffered. He was fired. He’s not a flight risk [at danger of fleeing ]…] There is no allegation I was a threat running around with a knife,” said he.
The Delhi Police opposed the bail application. It was believed that if the complainant is released on bail, it will be influenced by him since he is a wealthy and influential person.
According to police, “[His] mother and sister tried contact the complainant.”
The court was also informed by the police that they had filed a revision request against the denial to take the accused into custody.
It said that many witnesses were to be examined, including the captain of the cabin crew.
It is possible that a sessions court will take up the matter in the latter part of the day.
The complainant’s counsel, however, claimed that the accused had offended her and “has the audacity not to claim I was not the victim.” I had sought FIR. It was because of his influence that FIR was not filed.”
He also stated that the complainant cannot stay in Bengaluru.
“They’re threatening to kill me. “They’re threatening me with not only messages, but also by coming to mine,” she counselled.
However, the lawyer for the accused refuted the claim of threat made the complainant’s attorney.
“Her (the victim woman’s) son-in-law, an American professor, sent me a letter advising that I had to pay the full fare. I had paid for dry-cleaning. The mail from my son in law confirmed that the money the accused had sent me as compensation was not returned.
After hearing the arguments, court reserved its decision on bail application.
A magisterial court had placed Mr. Mishra under 14-day judicial supervision on Saturday. It denied police his custody.