JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Dr. R. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to recover her son, namely, Bhaskar Jyoti Kakoty who had gone missing since 04.09.2016 for which an FIR was lodged on 05.09.2016; for freezing the loan account standing in the name of her missing son; and on failure of the State machinery to trace out the missing son of the petitioner, to pay compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakh only) to the petitioner and the wife of the missing person. It may be mentioned that by order dated 26.07.2021, this Court had taken note of the fact that by order dated 21.03.2018, the name of respondent no. 7 was struck of and accordingly, it was observed that the prayer made in this writ petition for freezing the loan account standing in the name of the son of the petitioner has been rendered infructuous and that no such order can be passed in the absence of the concerned bank.

3. The case projected by the petitioner is that her missing son was working as a Manager of a private company and simultaneously, was also carrying on his own business with two trucks for carrying foodgrains to godowns of Food Corporation of India in the State of Manipur. In connection with his business, on or about 28.03.2016, the son of the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs. 10,000/- as production credit and Rs. 12,95,000/- as overdraft for agriculture from Axis Bank Ltd., Golaghat Branch, and that out of the said loan, the son of the petitioner had repaid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the bank. On 04.09.2016, the son of the petitioner had gone out for business and never returned. After enquiry and on not being able to trace out her son, on the next day, her son-in-law had lodged an FIR with Golaghat Police Station, which was registered as MMR No. 53 dated 05.09.2016. It is claimed that wide media publicity was given regarding the missing son of the petitioner and his photos were also published. On 19.01.2018, a report was submitted by the Golaghat Police to the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat that the matter was referred to CID Branch but the missing person could not be traced out. The petitioner has expressed her apprehension that Manipur extremists may have been involved in her son being missing and may have been confined in hideout of the extremists in Manipur. In the meanwhile the Axis Bank officials were asking the petitioner to repay the dues of her son and the petitioner apprehends that her husband's property, which was transferred in the name of her missing son to enable him to avail loan is in jeopardy if the bank enforces mortgage.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was the responsibility of the Government to look after the security of its citizens and as the State could not provide security to the son of the petitioner, the State was duty bound to pay compensation. It is also submitted that by now more than 5 (five) years has gone by from the date when the son of the petitioner had gone missing and that this writ petition is pending for more than three years, but except for submitting status reports, the State Police could do nothing and was clueless about the missing person. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of the following cases, viz., (i) Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa & Ors, (1993) 2 SCC 746, (ii) D.K. Basu vs. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416, (iii) Min Bahadur Thapa vs. State of Assam & Ors., 1999 (1) GLT 124, (iv) Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. vs. Chandrima Das & Ors, (2000) 2 SCC 465, (v) Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad & Ors. vs. Shivakka (2) & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 419, (vi) Tolaram Ranka & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2013 (5) GLT 602, (vii) Re: Inhuman conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC 658, (viii) Kaphot Dam vs. St