The Bombay high court reserved its order on a pre-arrest bail petition filed by controversial self-styled godwoman Radhe Maa in a dowry harassment case on Wednesday.
Justice Revati Mohite Dere said she would deliver the judgement on Thursday.
On August 14, the court had granted Radhe Maa alias Sukhvinder Kaur interim protection from arrest while hearing her plea.
Radhe Maa, who apprehended arrest in the case, had moved the high court after a sessions court had rejected her anticipatory bail petition on August 13.
Mumbai police had filed a case against her on August 5 for allegedly instigating the in-laws of a 32-year-old woman to harass her for dowry.
The case was filed after a Borivali magistrate had ordered a probe by police under section 156(3) of CrPc into allegations of dowry harassment against her on a complaint filed by a housewife.
Girish Kulkarni, counsel for the housewife, and intervenor Ramesh Joshi, argued that the in-laws of the complainant were disciples of Radhe Maa. The godwoman had complete control over the family and at her instance they had allegedly taken dowry from the housewife, he argued.
Referring to a police complaint filed by the housewife, the lawyer said that the complainant was told by her in-laws that Radhe Maa was god and she would have to perform puja for which money and jewellery were required.
Accordingly, she had parted with her valuables which were lying with the in-laws of the complainant and Radhe Maa, Kulkarni alleged.
Radhe Maa’s counsel Abad Ponda argued in the high court that all the six accused in the dowry case, including the husband of the complainant (housewife), had been given protection by the trial court, except Radhe Maa.
He also argued that the allegation against Radhe Maa of instigating the family to extract dowry from the complainant was an ‘after-thought’ and an improvement in the case because such an accusation was not made during the proceedings filed in the family court two years ago.
In her petition, Radhe Maa denied all the allegations, saying she had never instigated the family members and that she was being dragged into the case only because the complainant’s in-laws were her devotees.
The self-styled godwoman further alleged that the complainant had levelled allegations against her only to secure a favourable order from the family court in the dowry case filed by her against in-laws. She alleged that she was being “framed up” by the complainant.