1 BAG-54.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE - CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.54 OF 2011 Sou. Anita Narayan Saha .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.84 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Vs. Vishal Baban Vanne .... Respondent Shri Shekhar Ingawale for the Applicant in CA-54/11. Ms G.P. Mulekar, APP, for the State in both Applications. Shri Nitin Sejpal with Ms Pooja Bhojane for Respondent No.2 in CA-54/11 and the Respondent in CA-84/11. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: MARCH 23, 2011 P.C: 1. These two applications have been filed by the victim and the State for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Dr. Vishal Baban Vanne. He was a resident doctor in the hospital where the victim was taking treatment. Taking advantage of the victim's helplessness and after injecting sedative, the respondent is 2 BAG-54.11 alleged to have committed rape upon the victim after removing the life support system on which the victim was sustaining. The allegation is that the respondent sought and was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding that the offence with which the respondent is charged was punishable under Section 376-D of the IPC, which is bailable. The learned APP as also the learned counsel for the victim rightly point out that the offence is one punishable under Section 376(2)(d) and not under Section 376-D of the IPC. All the same, it is not that the respondent misrepresented to the Court that he was being charge-sheeted or tried for the offence punishable under Section 376-D. It is the I.O. and the prosecution which had been quoting Section 376-D. It is true that the learned Judge should have looked into the allegations made and particularly after observing that there was a rape, should have seen that the offence was not under Section 376-D. All the same, since the investigation is also complete and the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant was in police custody for 15-days and for one-and-half month in judicial custody, sending him back to the prison now without there being no allegation of tampering with 3 BAG-54.11 evidence or abusing his liberty may not be proper. If the respondent indulges in any such abuse or protracts the trial by seeking any adjournment, the prosecution may again apply for having his bail cancelled. 2. The Registry may bring it to the notice of the Additional Sessions Judge who disposed of the bail application that after having observed that there was a rape, he should have seen that the offence was not the one punishable under Section 376-D of the IPC. A senior officer of the rank of an Additional Sessions Judge is not supposed to go by the sections quoted by the police authorities or the prosecution. 3. The applications are, therefore, rejected and accordingly stand disposed of. 4. Considering the nature of the allegations made, the learned Judge may take up the case out of turn for expeditious hearing and finish it as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)