A city court on Tuesday granted bail to Shankar Mishra, accused of urinating on a woman co-passenger on an Air India flight from New York to Delhi, saying his custody was no longer required for the collection of evidence.

Additional Sessions Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla granted the relief to Mishra on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh and a surety of the like amount.  The judge imposed various conditions on him, including that he will not tamper with evidence, influence any witnesses or contact them in any manner. Mishra was also asked not to leave the country without the court's prior permission and to join the investigation and trial as and when called by the investigating officer (IO) or the concerned court.

Mishra was arrested from Bengaluru on January 6 and sent to judicial custody by a court here on January 7. He allegedly urinated on the 70-year-old woman co-passenger in an intoxicated condition in the business class of the Air India flight on November 26 last year.

The court noted that the statement of the victim has already been recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), besides the statement by the investigating officer. "Further, the passengers seated at seats 8C and 9C respectively have also already been examined. Crew has also given their statements. No other evidence is required to be collected with the assistance of the accused. Therefore, in these circumstances, it can be concluded that investigation qua the accused is already over and he is no longer required in custody, at least, for that purpose," the judge noted.

The statement of the passenger who was seated at 9C revealed that the passenger did not support the claim made by the victim in her statement, which, of course, could not be completely brushed aside at this stage, the judge observed, adding that the claim has become more of a matter of trial.

The court noted that the FIR in the case was registered after about a month and five days of the incident and the victim had also not approached the police or insisted on registration of an FIR during this period. "However, on the registration of the FIR, a very short notice seems to have been given to the accused for appearance. It is but natural for anyone accused of a cognisable offence to be in a state of panic and seek an opportunity to be able to exercise the right for seeking anticipatory bail or any other remedy that may be available.

"Non-joining in investigation on the very first occasion that too on such a short notice cannot itself be treated as showing conduct that the accused intended to flee from the judicial process," the judge said. He said that even otherwise, the presence of the accused during the investigation and trial can always be ensured by imposing stringent conditions.

The court also said that there was no ground to believe that the accused was guilty of any other offences in the past or did not have clean antecedents. "The accused has already spent about one month in judicial custody and the offence carries a maximum punishment of five years. Further, there is no report, at least, that the accused tried to threaten or intimidate the witnesses or the victim at any stage.

"Although there is a claim that the accused has apologised to the victim on the flight and that subsequently, he transferred some money in her account, which was later on returned, simultaneously, there is no unequivocal claim that he has been trying to harass the victim after the incident," the judge noted.