JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. This writ application has been filed seeking action against the respondents for malicious persecution on the allegation that the petitioner had been inflicted with wrongful arrest and kept in custody, apart from custodial torture for a period of nearly 6(six) months, which has infringed upon his right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The prayer made is for compensation to be paid to the petitioner for the humiliation and loss suffered by the petitioner, apart from directions to initiate appropriate action against the concerned officials.

2. The facts necessary for consideration of the matter are that, the petitioner an Ex-Army Serviceman was arrested on 13.05.2018, on the basis of an FIR and the case registered thereon, being Jowai P.S Case No. 105(5) 18 u/s 121/121A/120B/384 IPC read with Section 10 /13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The allegation contained therein was that, a banned outfit namely NSCN (K) Finance Cell, had carried out illegal activities including extortion, wherein the petitioner was allegedly involved. The investigation was then handed over to the National Investigation Agency ( NIA ) and the case was re-registered. In due course of investigation, it was discovered that the evidence was not sufficient to prosecute the petitioner at that stage, and as such, the Special Judge NIA , Shillong, discharged the petitioner as per the charge-sheet, as no evidence was found against him.

3. Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner was made to languish for 6(six) months in custody for no fault of his, and on release, he has lost face and respect in society, for which the respondents are liable to make good by way of adequately compensating him for the wrongful arrest. In support of his case, the learned counsel has referred to the case of S. Nambi Narayanan vs. Siby Mathews & Ors. reported in (2018) 10 SCC 804, on the point of compensation being awarded on account of unlawful arrest. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Sohan Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1990) 4 SCC 580, in the context of the applicability of Section 319 of the CrPC. The learned counsel has also referred to Paragraphs – 11 and 12 of the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 6 ( NIA ) to buttress his case that, the arrest of the petitioner was a case of mistaken identity. He therefore submits that, the petitioner having been discharged on not being charged sheeted, it was a clear case of malicious persecution, for which the respondents were liable to pay compensation.

4. Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel has also placed judgments, that notwithstanding Section 49 (a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 18 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, this Court has ample jurisdiction in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to award compensation, and in support of his submissions, the learned counsel has cited the following cases.

i) Union of India & Ors. vs. Major General Shri. Kant Sharma & Anr. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 773.

ii) AIR 1962 Manipur 28, Oinam Apabi Singh vs. Imphal Municipal Board .

He lastly submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as various High Courts have viewed and taken serious exception to cases involving an individual’s right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially when such right is taken away