' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOO, J.---Two boys named Shamsul Haq and Ghulam Nabi were kidnapped from Peshawar recently. They were allegedly whisked away to the Mohmand Agency by their kidnappers of whom two were identified as Toor and Khur Muhammad. The incident was reported to the local police by the relatives of the victims as a result of which the Political Authorities were brought in the picture. In due course non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued by the Assistant Political Agent. Upper Mohmands, Ghallanai against four persons including the petitioners Dawar and Khan, who belong to the Mohmand Agency but are presently residing in Peshawar. Pursuant to the said warrants, which were sent for execution to the Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar, through the Commissioner Peshawar Division, the petitioners' were nabbed by the local police and produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate who initiated proceedings under section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking exception, the petitioners through their relative Mamoor Khan have filed this writ petition seeking quashment of the warrant of arrest issued against them as also the proceedings under section 86-A, Cr.P.C. On the ground that they were not nominated as the accused by the relatives of the kidnapped boys and were arrested in order to pressurise the real culprits Toor and Khur Muhammad who happened to be their relatives.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were law-abiding citizens who had shifted to Peshawar from the tribal territory and were neither involved in the crime nor were charged by any one and their only fault was that they were related to Toor and Khur Muhammad who had allegedly kidnapped the boys. It was further contended that the arrest of the petitioners was entailed by a letter written by the Commissioner, Peshawar Division to the Political Authorities which found mention in the correspondence between the political agent and Assistant Political Agent Upper Mohmands, annexed with the petition. It was lastly contended that the local administration had already made up its mind to hand over the petitioners to the Political Authorities and the proceedings under section 86-A, Cr.P.C. Were just an eye-wash.
3. The learned Advocate General on the other hand submitted that the writ petition was premature in that the proceedings under section 86-A, Cr.P.C. Had not concluded yet.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are more speculative than real.
A copy of the F.I.R. Lodged by the relatives of the victims has not been annexed with the petition and the record on the basis of which the warrant in question was issued is in the custody of the Political Authorities who are not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. The documents available on the record consist of the warrant of arrest and copies of the correspondence between the Political Authorities which clearly point to the involvement of the petitioners in the crime. It is true that in the letter dated 8-2-1994 addressed to the Political Agent, Mohmands by the Assistant Political Agent a letter received from the Commissioner, Peshawar Division finds mention but this does not mean that the warrant of arrest of the petitioners was issued at the behest of the Commissioner, Peshawar Division. It is a matter of common knowledge that Whenever a case of kidnapping involving people from the tribal territory takes place the Political Authorities concerned step in when approached by the local administration and thereafter both work as a team. This petition is undoubtedly premature as the proceedings under section 86-A, Cr.P.C. Have not yet been finalised. Interference at this stage would certainly stifle the said proceedings and defeat the very purpose of section 86-A, Cr.P.C. The apprehension of the petitioners that the local administration will remove them to the tribal territory without observing legal formalities is unfounded inasmuch as the Magistrate who is seized of the proceedings under section 86-A, Cr.P.C. Will not direct their removal to the tribal territory unless he is satisfied that the evidence produced before him raises a strong or probable presumption that they have committed the offence mentioned in the warrant. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed along with the application for interim relief bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No, 378/94.