Air India accused denied bail, Delhi court calls his act ‘utterly disgusting and repulsive’

“The complainant was a complete stranger to the accused. The alleged act of the accused relieving himself upon the complainant is 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 civic consciousness and needs to be deprecated,” the court said.

The court said the fact that the accused was voluntarily drunk during the flight was not denied by him. “The alleged fact reflects the intention of the accused,” the court said.

The court said the accused did not join the probe and his presence could not be secured after non-bailable warrants were issued. Therefore, his conduct does not inspire confidence.

It also noted that Mishra tried contacting the victim and possibility of the accused influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out.

Seeking bail for Mishra, his lawyer, Manu Sharma, told the court that IPC section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) was not made out in this case as the “driving intent” behind the act has to be considered.

“The unzipping is the problem more than urination… Of course, it is revolting to go through something like this. But when someone unzips himself in a public place, there will be a driving intent for that. Here I am meeting a definite case,” Sharma said.

He said that age must also be considered, and pointed out that the complainant was 72 years old while the accused is 34 years old.

“The case is that I (Mishra) am inebriated… The question is, was the unzipping to satisfy a sexual desire? That is not the case. I am not running away from the fact that it was obscene… Her statement doesn’t make the case in four corners of putting me as a lustful man,” Sharma told the court. “I don’t undermine what she went through. This trial will take its course. This man, he was gainfully employed, he was sacked, he is already going through the repercussions,” Sharma said.

Additional Public Prosecutor Shruti Singhal opposed the bail application, stating that the accused was a wealthy and influential person who may hamper the investigation by contacting the complainant if released on bail. Singhal said a revision petition against the denial of police custody was filed. Seven witnesses have recorded their statements so far.

The complainant’s lawyer, Ankur Mahendro, said the accused had not shown any remorse. “Intoxication can never be a defence; it is not that he was given liquor without his will. Assault doesn’t require physical contact. Heinous act has been committed,” Mahendro said. He read out a message purportedly sent by Mishra’s father to the complainant saying “karma will hit you back”, adding the woman was being intimidated.

Sharma said Mahendro was indulging in mudslinging and claimed that the complainant’s son-in-law had sent a message to Air India threatening to reveal the case details to media if her ticket was not refunded.

In his bail plea drafted by advocates Ishanee Sharma and Akshat Bajpai, Mishra said the Air India crew woke him up during the flight, informed him about the incident and suggested that he was the perpetrator. Mishra said he was shocked to hear this, and immediately protested. “However, the crew communicated and interacted with him in a manner that effectively left him with no choice but to cooperate with them,” said the plea. Mishra then “sought to alleviate the situation and tendered unconditional apology”, and promised to compensate the woman. The complainant accepted this unconditional apology and expressed unwillingness to subject the applicant to any other trouble,” said the plea.

He said he was “caught in a media storm and facing a media trial”.