Air India 'pee gate' case: Court adjourns accused Shankar Mishra's bail plea
1 min read . Updated: 27 Jan 2023, 05:19 PM IST
PremiumAdditional Sessions Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla adjourned the matter on Friday, noting that the investigating officer was not present. Moreover, the complainant's counsel was not provided a copy of the bail plea.
As the Air India ‘pee-gate’ case continues, a Delhi court has adjourned the bail plea of Shankar Mishra. The former Wells Fargo employee has been accused of urinating on a woman on board an Air India flight from New York to New Delhi last year. The court has listed the case for hearing on January 30.
Additional Sessions Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla adjourned the matter on Friday, noting that the investigating officer was not present. Moreover, the complainant's counsel was not provided a copy of the bail plea. Senior lawyer Ramesh Gupta who is appearing for Shankar Mishra had objected to the adjournment, calling for interim bail to be granted.
Delhi Police had registered an FIR against him on January 4 on a complaint given by the woman to Air India. The accused was arrested on January 6 and remains in judicial custody. Mishra's bail plea was recently dismissed by the Magistrate court.
Also read: Air India fined ₹10 lakh for hiding another pee incident last month
Earlier on January 11, the Magistrate Court had dismissed Mishra's bail plea, dubbing his alleged actions utterly "disgusting and repulsive".
“The alleged act in itself is sufficient to outrage the modesty of any woman. Egregious conduct of the accused has shocked the civic consciousness and needs to be deprecated," Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg had said at the time.
Mishra has been accused of consuming alcohol on the flight and then urinating on his fellow passenger while drunk. The magistrate had noted that he did not deny the fact that he was intoxicated.
Mishra's lawyer had previously argued that the purported victim had a problem with incontinence and had urinated on herself. “The complainant woman's seat was blocked. It was not possible for him (Mishra) to go there," he asserted.
The complainant had in turn issued a statement stating that the accused has adopted a campaign of spreading misinformation and falsities with the intent of further harassing the victim.
(With inputs from agencies)
