‘Law, not public pressure, is key’: Shankar Mishra sent to judicial custody

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday refused to grant police custody of Shankar Mishra, arrested for allegedly urinating on an elderly woman passenger on board an Air India flight from New York to Delhi in November 2022, and remanded him in 14 days’ judicial custody.
“In the considered opinion of this court, physical presence of the accused is not required to interrogate other witnesses. Even a CrPC Section 164 statement can be recorded without taking him into police custody. For the reasons above, police custody application is denied,” the court of metropolitan magistrate Anamika said.
Advocate Manu Sharma, representing Mishra, submitted that as per the FIR, only one of the sections invoked is non-bailable and rest are bailable. Mishra was booked under IPC Sections 354, 294, 509 and 510, and Section 23 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. Mishra moved a bail plea in court, which scheduled it for hearing on January 11.


As police moved an application requesting three days’ custody, the court questioned why police custody was needed. To this, the public prosecutor said the probe was ongoing and police had examined some cabin crew but the captain and some others were yet to be examined.

The court again asked why police custody was needed. “I understand that he was not joining the probe and now he has been arrested. But my question is, why police custody is required? What cooperation is required? You are saying crew members are to be examined. Why do you need him (Mishra) for this? Why can’t he be sent to judicial custody?”

Police requested the court to allow at least a day’s custody and the court replied that there was nothing at this stage to suggest that the court should give police custody of Mishra. “He is not required for others’ questioning, TIP (test identification parade). Everything is known. Why is his custody needed? No grounds for police custody,” the court said.
Meanwhile, a counsel representing the complainant, the elderly woman, told the court that the police had not provided a copy of the FIR.

The court told the counsel to come to court with the complainant as police had claimed that three to four people were asking for it.

The woman’s lawyer also told the court that Mishra has recanted the statement he had made before police, to which the court said the statement does not matter anyway under the Indian Evidence Act. The counsel submitted that according to the complainant, the crew are also accused.
“Just because public pressure has mounted, don’t do this. The law should be followed,” the court said.