Air India urination case: Mishra’s father sent WhatsApp text, says complainant

Advocate Manu Sharma appearing for Mishra, submitted before the court that his client should be granted bail claiming a lapse in the arrest procedure followed by the police

In the latest development, the complainant in the Air India urination case, alleged before a Delhi court on Wednesday that the father of the accused Shankar Mishra sent her a WhatsApp message and later deleted it.

Shankar Mishra, accused of urinating on a woman passenger on an Air India flight from New York to Delhi, was arrested by police on January 6 (PTI Photo)

The allegation was made while the court reserved its orders on the bail application moved by Mishra. Mishra, who is accused of urinating on a fellow passenger on an Air India flight, was later sent to 14-day judicial custody by the Delhi Patiala House court on Saturday.

Advocate Manu Sharma appearing for Mishra, submitted before the court that his client should be granted bail claiming a lapse in the arrest procedure followed by the police. He claimed that non-bailable warrants were issued against Mishra without any summons or bailable warrants.

Sharma also highlighted that section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be made out against his client as lust is not the driving intent behind the act. “The complainant’s case does not put him as a lustful man”, Sharma submitted while reading a copy of the complaint before the court.

Sharma also pointed out that his client is not a ‘flight risk’ and is willing to cooperate with the investigation citing that he was present on January 4 before the ‘Internal Complaint Committee’ formed by Air India to look into the matter.

Advocate Mahindro appearing for the complainant, however, opposed the bail application stating that Mishra is an influential person and can pressurise the complainant if released on bail.

He also pointed out that Mishra’s father sent the complainant a WhatsApp message on the day Mishra was arrested, but later deleted it.

The contents of the text message are not known.

Mishra’s advocate, however, opposed the accusation stating, the allegations were “completely baseless”. He said, “This is not his (Mishra’s) father’s number.”

Meanwhile, the investigating officer in the case, responding to Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg when asked about the investigation, informed that seven witnesses were interrogated and the statement of the complainant was recorded by the police under section 164 of the IPC. The officer further informed that six more witnesses are to be examined, including four flight staff and two passengers.

Mishra is accused of urinating on a fellow passenger on an Air India flight from New York to Delhi on November 26. A first information report (FIR) on the complaint of the victim was filed against him in Delhi on January 4 and he was arrested on January 6 from Bengaluru.

He was produced before the Delhi court on January 7, where he was sent to 14-day judicial custody.