JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai. J.- Heard counsel for the parties. This is an application for bail in a case under Sections 395, 39B-A, 201 I.P.C. and Section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act. 2. This application shows a distressing state of affairs. It shows that although the applicant is in jail since 26-4-1993 his trial has not begun even the charges have not been framed. 3. A perusal of the order dated 27-3-2000 passed by the court below refusing bail to the Applicant shows that the trial has been protracted because the original accused No. 1 is absconding. It is a matter of profound regret that for his absconsion the Applicant is being punished. This is a classic instance of Peter being punished for the sins of Paul. 4. Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of decisions has held that the expression "procedure established by law" contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India not only connotes of a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable but also one which is expeditious. It needs to be emphasised that in a large number of decisions the Apex Court has held that the right of a speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A procedure wherein for no fault of the Applicant his trial has not commenced for over 7 years is the very antithesis of an expeditious procedure. It is a patently and blatently dilatory one and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. I am surprised that instead of permitting the Applicant to languish in jail for over 7 years why the learned trial judge did not separate his case from that of original accused No. 1. 6. I cannot refrain from observing that the learned trial judge has been oblivious to the fact that such a default by him would encourage accused persons to abscond instead of permitting themselves to be arrested on the next date of the incident as in the present case. 6. I cannot refrain from observing that the learned trial judge has been oblivious to the fact that such a default by him would encourage accused persons to abscond instead of permitting themselves to be arrested on the next date of the incident as in the present case. Again it pains me that the learned trial judge was unmindful of the fact that normally in such a case a sentence of 7 years is awarded; a period which the Applicant has already undergone. But I am hasten to add that the question of sentence is a question of discretion, of the sentencing Court and this order should not be construed to mean that in the event of the conviction the Applicant he should be sentenced to undergo 7 years. R.I. 7. Since the Applicant is in jail from 26-4-1993 and for no fault of his, his trial has not begun. I direct that he 'be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5.000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge. Kalyan. Application allowed.