Filmmaker Vikas Bahl had allegedly assaulted one of his crew member in 2015, and with the #MeToo wave going around strong, the the allegations have resurfaced.
Also, after the dissolution of Phantom Films, which was established in 2011 as a joint venture by Vikas Bahl, Anurag Kashyap, Vikramaditya Motwane and Madhu Mantena, reasons behind it were discussed.
One of the primary reasons that came to the fore were the charges of sexual harassment levelled against Vikas Bahl.
Anurag and Vikramaditya spoke about the entire fiasco as well.
For the uninitiated, an anonymous employee of the production alleged that on May 5, 2015, Vikas insisted on dropping her to her hotel post an event.
Later Vikas acted of passing out there, and when the accuser woke up she found out that the Queen director was masturbating on her.
Amidst all the rage, Vikas Bahl has been quite.
However, on Tuesday, he sent two separate yet similar legal notices to Anurag Kashyap and Vikramaditya Motwane via an email, as per a report in Mumbai Mirror.
According to the report in the daily, Vikas accused his former co-workers of “orchestrating the whole campaign against him” and using this opportunity to disperse the production house and make him responsible for the fall.
The notice, issued by Advocate Shamsher Garud of Jayakar and Partners, also stated that Anurag bribed another employee to go out against Vikas and falsely accuse him.
Vikas also labeled Anurag and Vikramaditya as opportunist. The notice further read, “You are neither a witness nor the alleged victim, but instead an opportunist seeking to derive benefit based on unsubstantiated information. The alleged incident has not been established in any court of law and that you have exploited the media to propagate your own personal vendetta.”
The notice also read that putting the blame of Phantom Films dissolution on him is in 'bad taste'.
Apart from this, a tweet by ANI also states that the notice asks Anurag and Vikramaditya, "to withdraw their tweet against him (Vikas Bahl) and tender unconditional apology on social media platform, desist from making further statements likely to harm his reputation, failing which legal action will be taken."
We wonder what exactly is the case.
