Air India passenger urinating case: Accused Shankar Mishra sent to 14 days judicial custody

New Delhi: Shankar Mishra, the accused in the Air India passenger urinating case, has been brought to Patiala House Court by Delhi Police. Patiala House Court sent him to 14 days of judicial custody. He was arrested by Delhi Police last night from Bengaluru. Shankar is accused of urinating on an elderly woman on the flight during his drunk state on 26 November 2022.

Mishra’s lawyer moved a bail plea in the court, which is to be heard on January 11. The court noted that the accused’s mobile phone was traced and he was located in Bengaluru. Mishra could not even be found at his workplace and the court concluded that he was deliberately not joining the investigation.

Before presenting him to the court, Shankar Mishra was brought to Safdarjung Hospital for a medical examination.

Shankar was, reportedly, evading police arrest by changing locations repeatedly. He faced the repercussions of his actions as not only Delhi Police arrested him, but US-based firm Wells Fargo also fired him after embarrassment over the incident.

The flyer was in a highly intoxicated state on an Air India flight from New York to New Delhi, when he unzipped his pants and urinated on a co-passenger. As per the reports and statements of the eyewitness, he stay put there for some time, after which he was asked to move from there by co-passengers.

The matter was brought to the notice of crew members but the behaviour was excused by the crew. This led the elderly woman, who was the victim of the offence, to send a letter to Tata Group chairperson N Chandrasekaran. She, on January 4, registered a complaint with the police, against Shankar Mishra, after which the police registered an FIR and began the hunt.

Mishra has been charged with sexual harassment and obscenity, and he is barred from flying with the airline for 30 days. Meanwhile, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) also issued a notice to Air India and the crew present on that flight and called their conduct ‘unprofessional’.