Mumbai :Self-styled godwoman Radhe Maa was today questioned for over four hours by police in connection with a dowry harassment case during which she denied all allegations against her even as the Bombay High Court provided her temporary relief by granting interim pre-arrest bail.
The controversial ‘godwoman’ turned up at the Kandivali Police Station in response to summons issued for questioning in a dowry harassment case.
After grilling her for nearly four-and-a-half hours and recording her statement she was let off. During the questioning, Radhe Maa denied any wrongdoing, a police officer said.
“She denied all allegations against her,” said Mukund Pawar, Senior Inspector of Kandivali Police Station.
According to police, the ‘godwoman’ was given a list of 75 questions regarding the case filed by a city woman.
Three women sevaks (disciples) and Radhee Maa’s lawyer accompanied her during the questioning, while more than 50 followers and well wishers stood outside the police station, they said, adding she went to the police station in suburban Mumbai around 11.30 am.
Also, police from Borivali, a suburb adjoining Kandivali, questioned Radhee Maa about a complaint against her filed by an advocate there. “An ACP and I monitored the questioning of Radhe Maa done by the personnel of Kandivali and Borivali police stations,” said Pawar.
Radhe Maa was summoned in connection with a complaint by the 32-year-old woman who alleged she instigated her in-laws, who are her followers, to demand dowry from her.
Police last week issued summonses to Radhe Maa and six others following the complaint received on August 5 in which the woman alleged that she was physically and mentally harassed by her in-laws for dowry.
A local court yesterday declined pre-arrest bail to Sukhvinder Kaur alias Radhe Maa, who then moved the high court. She received some relief by afternoon with the high court granting her interim protection from arrest until two weeks.
Granting her relief, Justice Mridula Bhatkar noted the Radhe Maa’s argument that the complainant’s allegation of her instigating in-laws to harass her was “an after thought”, which was not levelled during the proceedings in the Family Court.