MUMBAI: The father-in-law of former India cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan was arrested on Monday, along with his son and a relative, for allegedly assaulting a man and his family in Byculla two days earlier after he hit a puddle on the road with his car and splashed one of them with water.Byculla police said Yusuf Khan (30), a local, was returning home around 9pm on Saturday when his vehicle splashed water on the relative, Shoaib Khan (35). Yusuf Khan told police that he stopped and immediately apologized, but Shoaib abused him and smashed the car’s windshield using a bamboo stick. Shoaib allegedly then assaulted Yusuf Khan, causing him injuries.After Yusuf Khan returned home, his family members suggested that they approach police. On the way to the police station, they met Khalid Khan alias Makaliq, Yusuf Pathan’s father-in-law, who, along with son Umarshad Khan (35), Shoaib and another accused Shehbaz Pathan, started an argument. Police said Khalid, Umarshad, Shoaib and Shehbaz attacked Yusuf Khan and his relatives with bamboo sticks and a baseball bat. Yusuf Khan’s brother-in-law, Salman, sustained a fracture to a hand, while an uncle, Zaki Ahmed, suffered serious injuries.Shehbaz is on the run, while the other three alleged assailants were arrested. The three, who were booked for assault and causing grievous hurt, were produced before a court and remanded into judicial custody till May 2.Defense counsel Dayanand Dere said it was a petty fight that resulted in both parties assaulting each other, but police have presented only one side of the story. “The complainant as well as my clients both assaulted each other, but police took their side and presented the case as if my clients were at fault. Khalid is a senior citizen and he, too, has not been spared,” he told TOI. Dere said later in the evening, police filed an FIR against Yusuf Khan based on across-complaint.Police relied on CCTV footage, statements of witnesses and seized weapons, including bamboo sticks and a baseball bat. They told the court that the accused were clearly identified in the CCTV footage and by witnesses.The prosecution opposed granting them bail, arguing that custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the other accused, verify criminal antecedents and prevent tampering with evidence. The complainant’s lawyer, Pratap Nimbalkar, said his clients have been seriously injured and the accused should not be granted bail.
