By A Correspondent
On 15 October we carried the late Pratyusha Bannerjee’s boyfriend Rahul Raj’s tirade against two women who he claims have conned him and misused his name.
One of the ladies Varsha Bhagwani whom Rahul had described as “good-for-nothing con woman” has come forward to hit back at Rahul Raj.
Rahul Raj had this to say about Ms Bhagwani: “Another good-for-nothing struggler Varsha Bhagwani who made a lot of noise against me was also provoked by Ms.Heer Patel. Incidentally Varsha was also the con-woman behind the false Mrunal Jain rape case controversy.She then had to eat humble pie by writing an apology letter addressed to Versova police station.Heer Patel,Varsha and company had formed a gang against me to malign my character and assassinate my reputation and hard-earned goodwill.What is heartbreaking is the blatant misuse of media by these women.But I am thankful to God that after a special hearing of one and a half hours in court,the Honorable Judge of High Court deemed the matter baseless.Today I am relieved of all three matters including the fraud,molestation and suicide.”
Livid at being vilified by someone whom she once trusted Ms Bhagwani hits back hard at Rahul Raj: “Firstly he is out on bail .He hasn’t got a clean chit from the court. Secondly I don’t know Heer Patel I only met her once at the police station when Rahul asked me to act as a fake journalist and call her .Thirdly Rahul has emotionally and verbally abused me and even came to raise his hand on me and created scenes below my building with Sahila Chhadha and threw Nimai Bali out of his house who is my guardian. Fourthly Pratyusha was a friend and he didn’t treat her well .Everyone knows that after her death he got involved with my best friend Sita Narayan and got her into drugs I have seen everything with my own eyes. And he’s now calling me a con-woman for no reason. And lastly Rahul Raj is calling me a struggler. At least I don’t lie and borrow money that can’t be returned. Do you know his cheque of 12 thousand rupees to me bounced due to insufficient funds in his account.”