NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday refused to give police custody of Shankar Mishraarrested for allegedly urinating on an elderly female passenger on a flight Indian Airlines Flight from New York arrived in Delhi in November 2022 and detained him for 14 days.
“In the view of this court, it is not necessary for the defendant to be present to question other witnesses. Even a statement under Article 164 of the CrPC can be recorded without putting him in police custody. For the above reasons, the application for custody of the police was refused,” said Anamika city court.
Advocate Manu Sharma, representing Mishra, filed that under the FIR, only one of the parts cited was non-guaranteable and the rest was bailable. Mishra has been placed under Part IPC 354, 294, 509 and 510, and Section 23 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. Mishra has filed for bail in court, scheduled for a hearing on January 11.
When the police filed a request for a three-day detention, the court questioned why it was necessary to detain the police. In this regard, the prosecutor said that the investigation is ongoing and that the police have checked some of the flight attendants but the captain and some others have not yet been checked.
The court asked why police custody is needed. “I understand that he did not participate in the investigation and now he has been arrested. But my question is, why is there a need for police custody? What cooperation is needed? You are saying that the crew members will be tested. Why do you need him (Mishra) for this? Why can’t he be sent to judicial custody?
The police asked the court to allow the detention of at least one day and the court replied that there is nothing at this stage to suggest that the court should give Mishra police supervision. “He’s not needed for other people’s questions, TIP (identity test march). Everything is known. Why is his guardianship necessary? There are no grounds for police detention,” the court said.
Meanwhile, an attorney representing the complainant, the elderly woman, told the court that police had not provided a copy of the FIR.
The court ordered a lawyer to come to court with the complainant because the police stated that three to four people asked for it.
The woman’s lawyer also told the court that Mishra had withdrawn the testimony he had given to the police, which the court said was unimportant under the Indian Evidence Act. Attorneys filed that according to the complainant, the crew was also charged.
“Just because public pressure has increased, don’t do this. The law should be followed,” the court said.
“In the view of this court, it is not necessary for the defendant to be present to question other witnesses. Even a statement under Article 164 of the CrPC can be recorded without putting him in police custody. For the above reasons, the application for custody of the police was refused,” said Anamika city court.
Advocate Manu Sharma, representing Mishra, filed that under the FIR, only one of the parts cited was non-guaranteable and the rest was bailable. Mishra has been placed under Part IPC 354, 294, 509 and 510, and Section 23 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. Mishra has filed for bail in court, scheduled for a hearing on January 11.
When the police filed a request for a three-day detention, the court questioned why it was necessary to detain the police. In this regard, the prosecutor said that the investigation is ongoing and that the police have checked some of the flight attendants but the captain and some others have not yet been checked.
The court asked why police custody is needed. “I understand that he did not participate in the investigation and now he has been arrested. But my question is, why is there a need for police custody? What cooperation is needed? You are saying that the crew members will be tested. Why do you need him (Mishra) for this? Why can’t he be sent to judicial custody?
The police asked the court to allow the detention of at least one day and the court replied that there is nothing at this stage to suggest that the court should give Mishra police supervision. “He’s not needed for other people’s questions, TIP (identity test march). Everything is known. Why is his guardianship necessary? There are no grounds for police detention,” the court said.
Meanwhile, an attorney representing the complainant, the elderly woman, told the court that police had not provided a copy of the FIR.
The court ordered a lawyer to come to court with the complainant because the police stated that three to four people asked for it.
The woman’s lawyer also told the court that Mishra had withdrawn the testimony he had given to the police, which the court said was unimportant under the Indian Evidence Act. Attorneys filed that according to the complainant, the crew was also charged.
“Just because public pressure has increased, don’t do this. The law should be followed,” the court said.
