The father of a woman who went missing from Jaipur has alleged that the phoney spiritual guru -- Shiv Murat Dwivedi (39) was behind the abduction of his daughter.
The 22-year-old woman has been missing since December 23, 2009 from Jaipur.
“I got a call from my daughter three days after she went missing. When the police traced the number it was found to be registered in the name of Dwivedi. We came to Delhi and met Dwivedi at a government quarter in south Delhi. He said he knew many influential people and would return my daughter soon,” said Pradeep Agarwal, the father of the 22-year-old woman.
Agarwal lodged a complaint with the Shyam Nagar police station in Jaipur and accompanied with a police team came to Delhi on January 3 this year.
Agarwal added that after they had met Dwivedi one of his accomplices threatened them with dire consequences if they enquired anything about his daughter.
“Dwivedi had boasted about his political links so even the policemen got scared and the case was not pursued any further,” said Agarwal.
Dwivedi reportedly told the police that he had lost his identity card in Jaipur five years ago and that might have been misused to buy a SIM card in his name.
Police said Dwivedi had used another name -- Swami Bhimanand on the identity card. Dwivedi was produced in a city court on Thursday and was sent to police custody for five days.
“We have got his remand. He needs to be interrogated for his other links and associates,” said HGS Dhaliwal, deputy commissioner of police (south).
“We contacted the district administration officials in Satna in Madhya Pradesh and Chitrakoot in UP to give an account of the properties purchased in the last few years by Dwivedi,” said the officer.
A Delhi court today allowed Delhi Police to interrogate him in custody. Metropolitan magistrate Ravinder Singh sent him to police custody till March 9.
“The entire case has vast ramifications and to unearth them, the custodial interrogation of the accused was required. We also want to ascertain whether some more call girls have been detained by the accused at his different places or not,” police told the court.
The defence counsel, however, vehemently opposed the plea saying the custodial interrogation of the accused was not required at all as the probe in the case was almost over.
(with PTI inputs)