Air India Urination case: Delhi court grants bail to accused Shankar Mishra

A Delhi court on Tuesday granted bail to Shankar Mishra who was arrested earlier this month for urinating on a fellow passenger on an Air India flight in November last year..Additional Sessions Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla pronounced the order after having reserved it on Monday. He directed that Mishra be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹1 lakh..Mishra was arrested by the Delhi Police from Bengaluru on January 7. While the police sought his remand, the court sent him to 14 days judicial custody. He then moved his bail application but it was rejected by Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg on January 11. He has since been in judicial custody. It has been alleged that Mishra urinated on a 70-year-old woman while in an inebriated condition in November last year. 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 was subsequently removed from his job at Wells Fargo with the company saying that the allegations against him were "deeply disturbing". .During his bail hearing on Monday, the Delhi Police had argued that Mishra initially absconded and switched off his mobile phones and was eventually tracked down through his IMEI number. The Public Prosecutor also argued that the incident has embarrassed India internationally. "India ki international beizzati ho gayi hai sir," the PP said.Mishra's counsel Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta said that the investigation is complete and crew members and other witnesses have also been questioned."Initially my bail was also declined because the investigation was pending. Now that is done and they have examined other crew members and witnesses," it was submitted..While hearing the arguments, Judge Bhalla had noted that while what the accused allegedly did was disgusting, the Court will only go by the law."It may be disgusting; that is another matter but let us not get into that. Let's go into how the law deals with it," the court had said. It had also remarked that there were contradictions between the allegations made by the complainant and one of the main witnesses.