ORDER Gangele, J. -- 1. The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation in regard to arrest of two youths of Scheduled Caste category. It is submitted by the petitioner that the aforesaid persons were arrested illegally and they were handcuffed and produced before the Executive Magistrate. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the youths were beaten in the police custody. The police had no authority to arrest the aforesaid persons because they were juvenile and they had not committed any offence. It was the duty of the police to produce them before the juvenile Court. The petitioner prayed reliefs that an enquiry be ordered against the responsible persons of the whole episode and the persons, who were illegally detained, be provided proper compensation. 2. Respondents No.1 to 3/State in their return admitted the fact that two persons namely Ajay s/o Lalaram and Manoj s/o Ragghu Jatav were arrested and there were illegalities in the arrest of the aforesaid persons. It is further admitted that the aforesaid youths were handcuffed and the proceedings under section 109 of CrPC were initiated against the aforesaid persons. An enquiry was conducted of the whole episode against the Inspector Rajveer Singh Kushwah, who was the then in charge of Police Station Pohri and S.N. Shrivastava, Sub-Inspector and consequently punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for a period of one year has been imposed by the Inspector General of Police vide order dated 2.2.2012. The respondent No.4 in his separate return denied his involvement in the whole episode. 3. Manoj s/o Ragghu Jatav made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police Shivpuri in regard to his illegal detention. He further submitted that he along with another youh Ajay had been beaten in the police custody and they were forced to clean the toilets of the police station, thereafter, they were paraded and handcuffed and their detention was illegal. The matter was also reported in the various news papers. A question was also raised in the assembly. Then Additional Superintendent of Police conducted an enquiry on the complaint of Manoj s/o Ragghu Jatav. A copy of the enquiry report dated 23.11.2011 has been filed as Annexure R-1 along with the return. In the aforesaid report, the Additional Superintendent of Police has held that there were illegalities in the proceedings initiated against two persons Manoj and Ajay under section 109 CrPC. A copy of the enquiry report dated 23.11.2011 has been filed as Annexure R-1 along with the return. In the aforesaid report, the Additional Superintendent of Police has held that there were illegalities in the proceedings initiated against two persons Manoj and Ajay under section 109 CrPC. The Additional S.P. also held that after arrest the then in charge police station Rajveer Singh Kushwah had beaten the aforesaid two persons and one of them Ajay was aged about 16 years, hence, he was juvenile. It is also held by the Additional Superintendent of Police that both the persons were handcuffed and they were produced in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pohri. However, a permission was obtained from the SDM to handcuff the aforesaid persons. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, Gwalior imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect against two police persons. 4. From the aforesaid facts of the case and the return filed by the State, there is no controversy about the fact that two persons were detained illegally by the police and they had been handcuffed and they had also been beaten in the police custody and one of them Ajay was juvenile. 5. Manoj in his complaint, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-2, stated that he along with his friend Ajay were the labourers and on 12.11.2011 at around 10-11 O’clock in the night they had been returning back to their home after working on the C.C. Road which was being constructed under Janbhagidari and near the culvert they were arrested by the police persons. Thereafter, they had been taken to police station where they had been beaten. They were also forced to clean the toilets of the police station. Thereafter, they were paraded in the town, handcuffed and were produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Additional Superintendent of Police, who conducted the enquiry also held that the arrest of these two persons under section 109 CrPC was not proper.They were handcuffed and they had also been beaten by Rajveer Singh Kushwah and S.N. Shrivastava during police custody. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997)1 SCC 416 , has held as under in regard to handcuffing of undertrials : “35. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997)1 SCC 416 , has held as under in regard to handcuffing of undertrials : “35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measure : (1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrest must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by atleast one witnesses, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witnesses of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the legal aid organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone inform of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone inform of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body,must be recorded at that time. The ‘Inspection Memo’ must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer affecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State of Union Territory, Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and Districts as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the illaqa Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board. 36. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for contempt of Court and the proceedings for contempt of Court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.” 7. 36. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for contempt of Court and the proceedings for contempt of Court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.” 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others v. Ravikand S. Patil, reported in 1991 AIR SCW 871, has held as under in regard to grant of compensation if the undertrial prisoner handcuffed illegally and paraded through street : “An undertrial prisoner, a suspect of being involved in a murder case, was handcuffed and both his arms were tied by a rope and he was taken through the streets by an Inspector of Police. Held : That the undertrial was entitled to payment of compensation. However, the Inspector of Police could not be made personally liable. The compensation granted (Rs.10,000/-) should be paid by the State.” 8. The Division Bench of this Court in Shamim Modi v. Ms. Sudha Chowdhary, District Collector, Betul and others, reported in ILR (2009) M.P. 84, has held as under in regard to handcuffing and illegal detention and arrest of prisoners : “11. We find full force in the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Pathak. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The personal liberty of person thus can be taken away by a resonable procedure laid down in law. The tribals including Hannu and Shyamlal were arrested for various offences alleged of have been committed by them and they were produced before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhaisdehi on 24th August, 2004. While the bail applications of two tribals were rejected, the other tribals were released on bail. Subsequently, however, the second bail application of Hannu and Shyamlal were allowed by order dated 21st December, 2004 and Hannu and Shyamlal were released on bail. The arrest and detention of the tribals including Hannu and Shyamlal are therefore in accordance with the procedure laid down in the CrPC. The fundamental rights of the tribals including Hannu and Shyamlal under Article 21 of the Constitution have not been violated and they are not entitled to award of compensation. 12. The arrest and detention of the tribals including Hannu and Shyamlal are therefore in accordance with the procedure laid down in the CrPC. The fundamental rights of the tribals including Hannu and Shyamlal under Article 21 of the Constitution have not been violated and they are not entitled to award of compensation. 12. In Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar (supra), cited by the petitioner, the facts were that Rudul Shah was acquitted by the Court of Sessions, Muzaffarpur, Bihar on 3rd June, 1968 but he was released from jail on 16th October, 1982, more than 14 years after he was acquitted. On these facts, the Spreme Court held that the detention of Rudul Shah for about 14 years from 1968 to 1982 was unauthorised and illegal and hence his liberty had been taken away for the period of 14 years without following the procedure under the law. The Supreme Court, therefore, granted compensation of Rs.30,000/- in addition to compensation of Rs.5,000/- paid to Rudul Shah. In the present case, on the other hand, as we have found, the detention of 13 tribals was in accordance with law and we cannot hold that their personal liberty had been taken away without following the procedure established by law. 13. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and others (supra), cited by the petitioner, the son of Nilabati Behera, aged 22 years was killed while in custody and on these facts, the Supreme Court held that the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his life without following the prescribed procedure of law was violated and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to Nilabati Behera from the State of Orissa. In the present case, none of the tribals has been killed in custody. 14. In the present case, none of the tribals has been killed in custody. 14. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (supra), cited by the petitioner was a case registered pursuant to a letter dated 26.8.1986 to the Chief Justice of India by the Executive Chairman, Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-political organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, drawing His Lordship’s attention to news items published in The Telegraph dated 20.7.1986, 21.7.1986 and 22.7.1986 and in the Statesman and Indian Express dated 17.8.1986 regarding deaths in police custody and it is in this context that the Supreme Court held that award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. The present case is not a case of custodial violence or custodial death and there is no violation of the rights of the tribals guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution on account of arrest and detention for commission of alleged offences according the provisions of the CrPC.” 9. In the present case two persons were handcuffed illegally in violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu (supra). There were no sufficient grounds to arrest aforesaid two persons under section 109 CrPC. They had also been beaten in the police custody. One of them namely Ajay was juvenile, in spite of that he was not produced before the juvenile Court. Hence, the personal liberty and fundamental rights of the two persons namely Ajay and Manoj are violated. 10. An enquiry has already been conducted against the two persons Rajveer Singh Kaushwah and S.N. Shrivastava and in the enquiry the aforesaid police officers were found guilty for the misconduct and a punishment has been awarded against them by Inspector General of Police. Hence, in our opinion, the relief claimed by the petitioner for order of enquiry has become infecutuous. 11. The petitioner raised an important question and also highlighted the illegal detention of two Scheduled Caste youths. Hence, in our opinion, the relief claimed by the petitioner for order of enquiry has become infecutuous. 11. The petitioner raised an important question and also highlighted the illegal detention of two Scheduled Caste youths. Hence, the petition is maintainable as PIL on the basis of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, reported in (2010)3 SCC 402 , in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the concept of public interest litigation and also considered various earlier judgments and judgment of apex Court of other countries in this subject and held as under in regard to maintainability of the public interest litigation : “25. Public interest litigation has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) as under : “Public interest. -- Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.” 26. Advance Law Lexicon has defined “public interest litigation’ as under : “.... the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community has pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” 27. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined “public interest litigation” in its Report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows : “10. .... Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts providing legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.” {Holicow Pictgures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra [ (2007)14 SCC 281 : AIR 2008 SC 913 , SCC p.288, para 10:AIR p.918, para 19}. (Emphasis supplied) 28. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.” {Holicow Pictgures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra [ (2007)14 SCC 281 : AIR 2008 SC 913 , SCC p.288, para 10:AIR p.918, para 19}. (Emphasis supplied) 28. This Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [ (1982)3 SCC 235 :1982 SCC (L&S) 275], defined “public interest litigation” and observed that (SCC p.242, para 2) the public interest litigation is a cooperative or collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State or public authority and the judiciary to secure observance of constitutional or basic human rights, benefits and privileges upon the poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society.” After considering its earlier judgments and also judgments of the apex Courts of other countries, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal (supra), has issued the following guidelines in regard to Public Interest Litigation : “(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous consideration. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court be sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entering a PIL. (5) The Court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busy bodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.” After perusal of the aforesaid judgment and facts of the case, in our opinion, the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable. 12. After considering all the facts of the case, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to award proper compensation to the persons namely Ajay s/o Lalaram and Manoj s/o Ragghu Jatav because they were detained illegally, handcuffed and they had also been beaten. Hence, in such circumstances, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to order for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with directions that the respondent No.1 shall pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to Ajay s/o Lalaram and Manoj s/o Ragghu Jatav. The State is at liberty to recover the same from the responsible police officer after due enquiry. Order be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs.5,000/-.