Dawood sister's bail plea undecided

Mumbai: A sessions court in South Mumbai has asked Haseena Parkar, sister of gangster Dawood Ibrahim, to approach the court of the metropolitan magistrate for cancellation of the non-bailable arrest warrant against her and apply for anticipatory bail on Thursday.

The court also directed the police not to arrest her till then. On Wednesday also, the court had directed the police not to arrest her till the case is heard. The court, however, told the police that she could be kept under surveillance.

Haseena, who police say remained untraceable ever since her name figured in a cheating case, had appeared before sessions judge ND Desphande in a dramatic fashion on Tuesday.

Clad in a burqa, Haseena surprised the police and mediapersons when she arrived in the court accompanied by four other identically dressed women. All the four women used separate entrances to reach the court.

There was a slight confusion among the constables as they wondered which of the five women was Haseena. Even public prosecutor Rohini Salian raised doubts whether any of the five burqa clad women was Haseena. It was only then that she raised the veil briefly and her lawyer identified her to the court.

After the court proceedings were adjourned for the day, Haseena complained of uneasiness and had to be helped into a chair.

A few minutes later, she left the court along with the women accompanying her. The women quickly got into a taxi waiting near the court building even as photo-journalists jostled for photograph, but they left without obliging any of them.

Haseena, who has been evading arrest for two weeks, had moved the court for anticipatory bail in a case of alleged cheating and extortion. The Mumbai police had earned much flak for their failure to arrest Haseena even after a non-bailable warrant was issued against her.

According to the complainant, Haseena and her associates had failed to return Rs 30 lakh out of an advance of Rs 1 crore paid to them by Ravi Group of builders.

Haseena, who is said to have mediated the deal, had allegedly told the complainant to "forget" the Rs 30 lakh he had paid as an advance and threatened him with dire consequences if he persisted with his demand for the money.