Air India Urination Case: Complainant alleges father of accused Shankar Mishra sent WhatsApp messages; accused denies

A Delhi court on Wednesday reserved its order on the bail plea moved by Shankar Mishra who was arrested recently for allegedly having urinated on a fellow passenger on board an Air India flight in November last year while under the influence of alcohol. .Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg heard the matter today and reserved her decision. The order is expected to pronounced later today..The prayer for bail was strongly opposed by both the State as well as the complainant, with the Court being told that Mishra was highly influential and likely to influence the course of the case if he were to be released."This is highly probable that he may influence the complainant. He is a person of means and highly influential. The investigation at an initial stage," the Public Prosecutor told the Court..The counsel for the complainant told the Court,"The court has to examine whether bail can be granted to an offender who first said that he did, apologised for it but later recanted ... He is saying he was intoxicated. Intoxication can never be a defence. It is not his case that he was given liquor without his knowledge ... It was on account of his influence that Air India chose not to register an FIR ... My complaint was on 28th. It was only because of his influence that FIR took so many days."The complainant was represented by advocates Ankur Mahindro and Rohan Taneja.Notably, they also told the Court that Mishra's father has been sending unwarranted WhatsApp messages to the complainant."The father of the accused is sending me messages in WhatsApp. He says Karma will hit me and then deletes the message. On the date of arrest he writes this message," her counsel submitted."How did your number get to him?" the Court queried."That is Air India's fault. They made me sit across from the offender and at that time my number was exchanged," the complainant's counsel replied.Appearing for Mishra, advocate Manu Sharma, however, refuted these allegations outright."These kinds of allegations are baseless that is being made. This is not my father's number," Sharma said. .The father of the accused is sending me messages in WhatsApp. He says Karma will hit me and then deletes the message.Complainant.Sharma today pressed for bail on the ground that the guidelines for arrest as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Arnesh Kumar case were not followed.“Higher courts have been reminding us that when the offence carries a punishment of less than 7 years, the State has to follow certain safeguards. In this case Arnesh Kumar guidelines have not been followed … They issued a notice to me under Sec 41A, CrPC. My understanding is this notice is issued when they do not want to arrest … According to me Arnesh Kumar was not satisfied and I am entitled to bail on that. That is my first ground,” Sharma told the Court..Sharma also highlighted that Mishra had not made attempts to evade the inquiry process initiated by Air India in the matter while questioning the need for the issuance of a non-bailable warrant (NBW) in the case. “I was to appear on January 6. Is it that they will make up their mind on January 6 that I am evading? On January 4, when the FIR was registered, Air India had already initiated an internal inquiry. I appeared before them. I did not run away. If I was an evader, I would have run away … They went and obtained a NBW against me on January 6. The question is, can in the very first instance, a NBW be issued? There are case laws which say that, in the first instance, only a bailable warrant can be issued. Simultaneously, I was placed under arrest in Bengaluru,” Sharma submitted.Sharma went on to argue that when an investigation is on, magistrates should not generally get into the arena of aiding the investigation..Additionally, he contended that Mishra's actions, while obscene, were not intended to sexually harass the victim. Referring to the allegations leveled against Mishra by the complainant, Sharma argued,“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 … The case is that I 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.”.Sharma went on to submit that Section 354 (dealing with assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is one of the offences that Mishra is charged with, deals with sexual harassment. Whether or not there is an intent to outrage modesty is what is relevant to an inquiry in such cases, he submitted.“'Intent' to outrage the modesty is the scope of inquiry … The driving intent... what is that? Supreme Court has dealt with how Section 354 is to be applied … The driving force is whether I was driven by lust. The complainant's case does not put me as a lustful man... I don't undermine what she went through. The trial will take time. But the man has been sacked... He is not a flight risk,” Sharma argued..The other offences charged against Mishra under Sections 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and 510 (misconduct in public by a drunken person) of the IPC are bailable, Sharma added. .Mishra was arrested by the Delhi police in Bengaluru on Friday night for having allegedly urinated on a 70-year-old woman while in an inebriated condition in November on board an Air India flight.The incident came to light after the woman's letter to the Tata Group chairperson was made public via the media.Mishra, who worked at Wells Fargo, was also let go from his job after the company said that allegations against him were "deeply disturbing".A statement was recently put out by Mishra's lawyers stating that he had paid an agreed compensation amount to the woman on November 28, but that almost a month later on, December 19, the money was returned to him by the woman's daughter..On January 8, the court had refused to send Mishra to Police custody but remanded him 14 days judicial custody.The court had then said that the mere fact that there is public pressure should not sway the investigation in the case and Mishra's police custody would not be required.