VISHNU SAHAI.J - (1.) 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. 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.
(3.) 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.;