<p>The court on Monday directed 43-year-old Bhandarkar to appear before it on October 18 and submit his statement as an accused in the Preeti Jain rape case.<br /><br />Jain in 2004 had charged the filmmaker — known for gritty neo-urban realist films like “Chandini Bar”, “Page 3”, “Fashion”, “Corporate”, “Jail” and others — with rape. In her complaint, she had stated that the filmmaker had duped her into having sexual relations under the pretext of “friendship” and film offers. Talking to Deccan Herald, advocate S Kunjuraman said: “Usually rape is defined as coercion and forcible sex. However, in this case it is rape by cheating a person. </p>.<p>Whether the complainant or plaintiff had a friendship or were lovers is not the moot point. The point is that a hidden coercion was used to gain sexual relationship. Any sexual favour gained through cheating and deceit construe as rape. Thus the court after studying the FIR made him an accused and issued a “Process” against him. In simpler words “Process” is a summons issued in a criminal case against an accused. </p>.<p>The filmmaker can apply for an anticipatory bail in the Mumbai Sessions Court. However, the case against Bhandarkar is not just confined to rape through cheating it also encompasses issuing threats to the struggling actor.<br /><br />The case in 2004 had sparked off a relentless publicity in the media as it was for the first time that a struggling actress openly spoke about the pervasive casting couch syndrome in the shonky and vicious world of tinsel dreams.<br /><br />Jain in her complaint at the Versova Police Station stated that between 1999 and 2004, she was raped 16 times by Bhandarkar, each time promising her a film role.<br /><br />In 2009, Jain moved her complaint to the Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate Court following which investigating officials submitted that there was no evidence of rape against the director. <br /><br />The trial was stayed but Jain moved her plea once more and the court revived the FIR as it felt, “ the charges and allegations have traces of substantive evidences indicating rape,” according to advocate Kunjuraman.</p>
<p>The court on Monday directed 43-year-old Bhandarkar to appear before it on October 18 and submit his statement as an accused in the Preeti Jain rape case.<br /><br />Jain in 2004 had charged the filmmaker — known for gritty neo-urban realist films like “Chandini Bar”, “Page 3”, “Fashion”, “Corporate”, “Jail” and others — with rape. In her complaint, she had stated that the filmmaker had duped her into having sexual relations under the pretext of “friendship” and film offers. Talking to Deccan Herald, advocate S Kunjuraman said: “Usually rape is defined as coercion and forcible sex. However, in this case it is rape by cheating a person. </p>.<p>Whether the complainant or plaintiff had a friendship or were lovers is not the moot point. The point is that a hidden coercion was used to gain sexual relationship. Any sexual favour gained through cheating and deceit construe as rape. Thus the court after studying the FIR made him an accused and issued a “Process” against him. In simpler words “Process” is a summons issued in a criminal case against an accused. </p>.<p>The filmmaker can apply for an anticipatory bail in the Mumbai Sessions Court. However, the case against Bhandarkar is not just confined to rape through cheating it also encompasses issuing threats to the struggling actor.<br /><br />The case in 2004 had sparked off a relentless publicity in the media as it was for the first time that a struggling actress openly spoke about the pervasive casting couch syndrome in the shonky and vicious world of tinsel dreams.<br /><br />Jain in her complaint at the Versova Police Station stated that between 1999 and 2004, she was raped 16 times by Bhandarkar, each time promising her a film role.<br /><br />In 2009, Jain moved her complaint to the Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate Court following which investigating officials submitted that there was no evidence of rape against the director. <br /><br />The trial was stayed but Jain moved her plea once more and the court revived the FIR as it felt, “ the charges and allegations have traces of substantive evidences indicating rape,” according to advocate Kunjuraman.</p>
