Shankar Mishra Pee Case: Patiala House Court Reserves Order On Bail Plea Of Accused

A Delhi court reserved its order on Monday in the bail petition filed by Shankar Mishra, who was recently arrested for urinating on a fellow passenger on an Air India flight while under the influence of alcohol in November last year.

Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court Harjyot Singh Bhalla heard from all parties before reserving his verdict on Monday.

The order is expected to be pronounced on January 31, Tuesday.

The judge stated that, while what the accused allegedly did was disgusting, the Court will only follow the law. The Judge added that, “It could be disgusting; that is another matter, but let us not go there. Let’s look at how the law handles it.”

Shankar Mishra is currently in judicial custody after being denied bail by Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg on January 11.

On January 6, he was arrested in Bengaluru by Delhi police for allegedly urinating on a 70-year-old woman while in an inebriated condition on an Air India flight in November last year. The incident was brought to light after the woman’s letter to the Tata Group chairman was made public by the media.

During today’s hearing, the Public Prosecutor (PP) opposed bail, claiming that the accused had initially absconded and turned off his mobile phones. The Public Prosecutor contented that “He had turned off all of his cellphones. We tracked down his IMEI number.”

He claimed that the incident had embarrassed India on a global scale. The PP stated that, “India ki international beizzati ho gayi hai sir.”

Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, Mishra’s counsel, stated that the investigation is complete and that crew members and other witnesses have been questioned.

“My bail was initially denied as well because the investigation was ongoing. That is now complete, and they have examined other crew members and witnesses.” it was submitted.

Shankar Mishra was also fired from his position at Wells Fargo after the company stated that allegations against him to be “deeply disturbing.”

In a recent statement, Shankar Mishra’s lawyers said that although he had given the woman the agreed-upon compensation amount on November 28, but that almost a month later on, the woman’s daughter had given it back to him on December 19.

On January 8, the court had declined to place Shankar Mishra in judicial custody instead of remanding him for 14 days. The court then stated that the mere existence of public pressure should not influence the investigation, and Shankar Mishra’s police custody would not be required.