Mumbai Court Criticizes Police Over Premature Bail Report in Pathan Family Road Rage Case
A Mumbai court, while hearing the bail application of former India cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan's father-in-law and two others in a road rage assault case, strongly reprimanded the investigating officer on Tuesday. The court expressed concern over the officer filing a report supporting the grant of bail even before a formal notice had been issued on the application.
Court Proceedings and Bail Application Details
Metropolitan magistrate A A Kulkarni has reserved the order on the bail application for Wednesday, following intense arguments from both sides. The Byculla police arrested Yusuf Pathan's father-in-law, Khaliq Khan (66), along with his son, Umarshad Khaliq Khan, and a relative, Sohaib Khan, on Monday in connection with the alleged assault.
Defence advocate Dayanand Dere, representing the accused, filed the bail application on Tuesday, presenting several arguments in favor of his clients. He emphasized that a cross-FIR has been registered against the complainant and others involved. Dere highlighted that Khaliq Khan is a senior citizen with no direct role in the alleged crime, and that the police have already seized crucial evidence including CCTV footage and the purported weapons used in the incident.
- Khaliq Khan's advanced age and lack of involvement in the crime
- Completion of major investigative steps including evidence collection
- Existence of a cross-complaint against the original complainant
- Near completion of the police investigation
Prosecution's Strong Opposition and Court's Concerns
Complainant Yusuf Khan's counsel, Pratap Nimbalkar, vehemently opposed the bail application after investigating officer Sukhadeo Sanap submitted a no-objection report supporting the grant of bail. This prompted the court to question the investigating officer's premature action.
Nimbalkar argued, "This haste is inexplicable unless the investigating officer had a predetermined agenda to facilitate bail. The investigating officer's conduct appears to be a deliberate attempt to bypass procedural safeguards and deny the complainant his legitimate right to oppose bail."
In response, Dere clarified, "These allegations are false. I have placed on record that the court had issued a notice, after which the investigating officer filed the report. The only issue was that the notice did not bear a date, which led to the confusion."
Background of the Road Rage Incident
The case stems from an incident on April 18 when complainant Yusuf Khan was returning home in his car. According to the complaint, Khan allegedly drove through a puddle, splashing water on Shoaib Khan. Although Khan stopped and apologized, Shoaib reportedly became enraged and allegedly assaulted him while damaging his car's windshield.
After the initial altercation, Yusuf Khan returned home and informed his family, who encouraged him to file a police complaint. Later, when Khan and his family were leaving their building, Shoaib—accompanied by Khaliq Khan and Umarshad Khaliq Khan, who is reportedly a builder—allegedly confronted them. The group is accused of assaulting Yusuf Khan and his brother, Salman, using bamboo sticks.
Sequence of Events:- April 18: Initial road rage incident involving water splashing
- Assault on Yusuf Khan and damage to his vehicle
- Filing of police complaint by Yusuf Khan
- Subsequent confrontation and alleged assault with bamboo sticks
- Monday: Arrest of three accused by Byculla police
- Tuesday: Bail hearing and court's criticism of investigating officer
The court's scrutiny of the investigating officer's conduct highlights concerns about procedural integrity in high-profile cases. The magistrate's decision to reserve the order until Wednesday indicates careful consideration of both the defence's arguments for bail and the prosecution's concerns about investigative fairness.
