The appeal is submitted to the court decision on the absentee sanction of a preventive measure in the form of custody and on the detention of a preventive measure in the form of custody for a period of 2 (two) months    

The Judicial Board of the Zhambyl regional court for criminal cases

Zhambyl region, Taraz, Tole bi STR., 90

0801@sud.kz

8 (7262) 999-104

Lawyer: Lawyer Galymzhan Sarzhanov

Legal Office" law and law"

IIN 201240021767.

Republic of Kazakhstan, 050002, Almaty, Almaly

district, Abylai Khan Avenue, house 79/71, office 304.

www.zakonpravo.kz info@zakonpravo.kz

Tel.: +7 708 578 57 58 / 8 727 978 57 55.

Suspect: ke Muratbekovich

IIN ....

Zhambyl region, Shu district, Tole bi village.. Street,№... home resident.

Complaint

to the court decision on the absentee sanction of the preventive measure of the type" detention under guard "and on the detention of the preventive measure of the type" detention under guard " for a period of 2 (two) months                  

The Republic of Kazakhstan, having established itself as a democratic, secular, legal and social state, its highest values are man, human life, rights and freedoms (paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution).

At the same time, everyone has the right to defend their rights and freedoms by all means that do not contradict the law (paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 13 of the Constitution).

On May 20, 2025, the investigating judge of the Shu District Court of Zhambyl region B. M. Murzalipov, the lawyer-lawyer of the suspect E. M. K. B. D... in an open court hearing on the consideration of case materials No.3166-25-00-2-3m/188 in the assembly hall of the courthouse with the participation of the senior investigator of the investigative department of the Shuisky district Police Department, A. A. Ayatbek, born on February 26, 1985 in Zhambyl region, citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, secondary education, unmarried, temporarily unemployed, previously convicted, Zhambyl region, The sound of a petition for the authorization in absentia of a preventive measure in the form of "detention" in relation to the suspect in the criminal case of kudiktiol Muratbekovich, a resident of the Chuisky district, Tole bi village, Kilyshbai Street, house number 19-, "I don't know," he said.:

The petition of the senior investigator of the investigative unit of the Police Department of the SHU district Ayatbek A. A. regarding the suspect Erbol Muratbekovich K. on the absentee sanction of a preventive measure in the form of "detention under guard"-to be satisfied.

In respect of the suspect Erbol Muratbekovich K. to issue an absentee sanction in the form of "detention under guard" in the order of search for a period of 2 (two) months.

The term of detention of the suspect under guard should be calculated from the time of his actual detention.

If a suspect is brought to the institution, the head of the place of detention must immediately notify the body or person conducting the criminal case and the supervising prosecutor about this.

When the suspect is detained, bring him to the investigating judge for consideration of the validity of the application of the selected preventive measure in the form of "custody".

The suspect, E. M. K., was detained and detained in Almaty at 22:00 on June 24, 2025 in accordance with the requirements of articles 128-131 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), and a notice was issued on June 27, 2025.

Further, the senior investigator of the investigative unit of the Shu District Police Department Ayatbek A. A. filed a petition with the teregeu court to verify the validity of the application of absentee authorized detention in relation to the suspect E. M. K. in accordance with paragraph 2) of Part 4 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code).

In relation to E. M. K., The decision of the investigative court on the absentee sanction of a preventive measure in the form of "custody" was received by the Defense party on June 27, 2025 from the court Secretary.

On June 27, 2025, the investigating judge of the Shu District Court of Zhambyl region, B. M. Murzalipov, with the participation of the suspect E. M. K -, defense lawyer G. Sarzhanov, reviewed the case materials No. 3166-25-00-2 - 3M/247, made a decision using audio and video recording at an open court session:

On May 20, 2025, to recognize as justified the application of a preventive measure in the form of absentee sanctioned detention with respect to the detained suspect Erbol Muratbekovich K.

To calculate the 2 (two) month period of the sanctioned preventive measure in the form of "detention under guard" against the suspect Erbol Muratbekovich K. from 22 hours 00 minutes on June 24, 2025 to 22 hours 00 minutes on August 24, 2025. The amount of the pledge to the suspected E. M. K. should be left without determination.  

Dear Board of Appeal, we do not agree with the above-mentioned Court decisions, because there is no reason to arrest the suspect E. M. K. Suspect E. M. K -, holder of a red diploma with higher education, has a master's degree in Pedagogical Sciences, has not been previously convicted, has not been brought to criminal responsibility, has a permanent place of residence, the identity has been established. Suspect E. M. K -, does not intend to hide from the criminal prosecution authorities or the court, to interfere with the objective investigation of the case, its consideration in court.

In addition, the suspect K. E. M., the sole breadwinner of his family, is engaged in individual entrepreneurship without forming a legal entity, is married, married, legally married: IIN Rahimgazy Ayim Talgatovna 920610400546, (works as a speech therapist at the KSU "office of Psychological and Pedagogical correction of the Department of Education of the Akimat of Zhambyl region", is currently on maternity leave related to pregnancy) has 3 (three) minor children from marriage:

1.A..N. Yerbolatovich M. born in 2019

2. F. Yerbolatovna M., born in 2022.

3. M. I. Yerbolovich, born in 2024.

We also believe that the actions of the suspect E. M. K. are not properly classified and his actions do not contain the composition of the criminal offense provided for by Paragraph 2) of Part 4 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

If we carefully study the existing matreials of criminal cases, as well as the decisions of the investigating judge of the Shu District Court of Zhambyl region Myrzalipov B. M. on May 20, 2025 on the absentee sanction of a preventive measure in the form of "custody" against suspected E. M. K., and on June 27, 2025, on the recognition of E. M. K. by the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan of extortion, that is, the use of force or the destruction of other people's property or risk of damage, in the same way, there are no attempts to suspect the victim or his / her loved ones for committing a criminal group to demand the transfer of other people's property or rights to property or other actions of a property nature, the publication of which threatens to disseminate information humiliating the victim or other information that may cause significant harm to the interests of the victim or his / her loved ones.

In the actions of E. M. K - a criminal group has not committed any actions in the form of extortion, that is, the use of force or the threat of destruction or damage to other people's property, and the investigation has not established such actions.

The court adopted on May 20, 2025 the following information provided by the investigation in the inquiry part of its decision: "suspect E. M K - does not live in marriage, does not work temporarily". "what's the matter?"

However, the investigative court did not pay attention to the information contained in the protocol on the interrogation of a witness entitled to protection on 25.02.2025, submitted to the court by the investigative body, and did not check the information of the investigative bodies, did not study the case materials and accepted the judicial act.

It is clear that the court carefully studied the investigator's application for sanctioning a preventive measure in the form of "custody" in absentia for 2 months, however, the investigation did not prefer to contact the court Secretary by phone 8 778 085 34 44, recorded in the protocol on interrogation of a witness entitled to protection on 25.02.2025, submitted to the court, preferring the sufficiency of information provided by the investigative authorities.

On June 27, 2025, the court adopted the following information provided by the investigation in part of its decision: "judging by the materials of the case, on February 12, 2025, the names of "Erbol", "Sayasy" and other persons not identified by the investigation by threatening to use force on the victim S. Ozhanov near the cafe "Manilla" located on S. Seifullin Street in the city of Shu, 4,000,000 (four million) tenge of money, a bag (barset) worth 60,000 (sixty thousand) tenge, 400 he took his glasses worth 000 tenge and left the scene of the incident, the victim received material damage totaling 4,460,000 (four million four hundred and sixty thousand) tenge.

According to this fact, on February 13, 2025, the Shu APB initiated a criminal case No. 253166031000042 on the detection of signs of a criminal offense provided for in Part 4 of Article 389 of the criminal code, and pre-trial investigation actions began.

On suspicion of committing a criminal offense, Sayys Tursynbaevich Alimbayev, born on 02.03.1990, and Yerbol Muratbekovich, born on 26.02.1985, were identified. 2 on March 11, 2025, the pre-trial investigation case was re-differentiated from Part 4 of Article 389 of the Criminal Code to Paragraph 2) of Part 3 of Article 194 of the criminal code.

On March 22, 2025, the pre-trial investigation case was re-differentiated from paragraph 2) of Part 3 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code to Paragraph 2) of Part 4 of Article 194 of the criminal code.». - guided by the information.

The victim's time of injury was on February 12, 2025, but the victim chose to file a complaint with the police for unknown reasons the next day on February 13, 2025, however, the investigating Court did not pay attention to this circumstance.

In accordance with Article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Article 19 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, everyone is considered innocent until his guilt in committing a criminal offense is proven in accordance with the procedure provided for by this code and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force. No one is obliged to prove their innocence.

Unresolved doubts about the guilt of the suspect, accused, defendant are interpreted in their favor. Doubts arising in the application of criminal and criminal procedure laws must also be resolved in favor of the suspect, accused, defendant.

The court provided the investigation with the following information in the inquiry part of its decision: "on May 14, 2025, the criminal offense of the suspected E. M. K. was externally differentiated by Paragraph 2) of Part 4 of Article 194 of the criminal code and there was no way to establish his whereabouts.

Therefore, he was wanted, and the Criminal Police Department of the Shu APB was assigned to carry out operational search measures.

Then the investigator filed a petition with the court to sanction a preventive measure against him in absentia in the form of "custody".». - guided.

However, the investigating Court did not take into account the fact that the suspect lives with his parents and his family in the House No. 21 (19), Kylyshbay street, Tole bi village, Tole bi Village, repeatedly called by the investigation within the framework of this case, he went without warning and answered questions, was constantly in contact with the investigation, the investigator did not raise the phone when calling the suspect.

Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. As for the concept of” criminal liability for criminal offenses committed by a group", then the code recognizes a criminal offense committed by a group of persons if two or more performers jointly participate in the commission of a criminal offense without prior collusion. - it is said

It is said that if a criminal offense involves persons who have previously agreed to commit it jointly, it is recognized as a criminal offense committed by a group of persons by preliminary conspiracy.

In the inquiry part of its resolution, the court is guided by the information provided by the teregu that “the suspect E. M. K - was detained and detained in Almaty in accordance with the requirements of articles 128-131 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) at 22:00 on June 24, 2025 and notified of him on June 27, 2025”.

Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. When detaining a suspect, before starting any investigative actions in the presence of a suspect, the criminal prosecution body is obliged to immediately explain to the suspect his rights provided for by this code, a note is made in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect and in resolutions on recognizing the person as a suspect and qualifying the actions of the suspect.

However, the norms of this article were formally drawn up by the investigation, in fact, no rights were explained during the detention of the suspect, and to date, no information about his detention has been provided to the close relatives of E. M. K.

In accordance with Section 3 of Article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the investigator is obliged to carry out criminal prosecution by taking all measures for a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the circumstances of the case.

The investigator, E. M. K - without taking into account the circumstances provided by him, without taking all measures for a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the case, considers the case unilaterally and commits a violation of the law, adhering only to the side of the prosecution of the suspect.

In accordance with Article 1 of the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan" on the prosecutor's office", the prosecutor's office on behalf of the state exercises High supervision over compliance with the rule of law in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan within the limits and forms established by law. In accordance with Article 5 of the law, the prosecutor's office carries out high supervision of the rule of law (hereinafter referred to as supervision).

         The prosecutor's office, knowing that violations were committed by the investigation, does not give any legal assessment of the investigator's actions.

          If the prosecutor's office carefully examined these materials and took measures in its decision, there would be no doubt about the protection of the tarpaulin. The defense attorney is not obliged to prove the procedural actions that cause doubt in the case, but the prosecutor is obliged to investigate and verify the investigative actions that cause doubt.

At the court session, the suspect, E. M. K -, said that he did not agree with the suspicions brought to him, did not leave the investigative body, went to Almaty for treatment and surgery due to health problems in May 2025, warned the police officers who came to his parents ' house, during a walk in the park with a child in Almaty, police officers came and detained him, did not try to hide from anyone, and asked to dismiss the petition.

At the court session, his lawyer-lawyer G. T. Sarzhanov said that the petition was unfounded, the petition for absentee sanction was also unfounded, there is not a single evidence in the case that the suspect was hiding from the body, on the contrary, he went during the call of the investigator, the investigator, knowing his mobile phone, did not call the police station for a call, deliberately sent police officers to his house, no restraining order was received from him and he was not recognized as a suspect, as well as on April 15, 2025, he he was admitted to intensive care, since that time, he has been visiting Almaty, receiving treatment, returning home, in addition, he is married, has 3 minor children, lives with his parents in the village of Tole bi, Shu district, has not been in court before, and his request to apply one of the preventive measures in the form of "house arrest" or "bail" was not sufficiently evaluated by the court.

Judicial acts cannot be based on assumptions and must be supported by a sufficient set of admissible and clear evidence.

At the same time, the court in the inquiry part of its decision “the court, taking into account that the act committed by the suspect belongs to the category of a crime of a serious degree, the degree and nature of the public danger of the crime committed, personal data, is unemployed, does not have a permanent address in the Shu district, has previously been tried under this suspected article and has re-committed a homogeneous criminal offense, a dangerous repetition of crimes is recognized by the court's verdict in his actions, considering that, due to the specified circumstances, he may commit other criminal offenses while being free and hide from the criminal prosecution authorities or the court, concluding that the release of the suspect Demeuov a.m. may interfere with an objective investigation or consideration of the case in court, he considers there is a reason to take into account the requirements of Part 9 of Article 148 of the CPC and apply a preventive measure in the form of "detention under guard" without determining the amount of bail."

We do not know who the suspect is, Demeuov A.M. We cannot provide information on whether leaving Demeuov A.M. at large could interfere with an objective investigation or consideration of the case in court.

The suspect E. M K is not a criminal, the suspicion against him is not confirmed, there are no grounds for applying a preventive measure in the form of arrest, he has not been convicted before. He lives in the Shusky district with his family and parents, as indicated above.

Taking into account the above-mentioned motivation, there was an abuse of trust on the part of the investigative court, there are grounds for releasing the suspect E. M. K. according to the evidence presented to the investigative court, the suspicion of committing a criminal offense is not confirmed, there are no grounds for applying a preventive measure in the form of arrest.

In accordance with Part 2 of Article 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (circumstances taken into account when choosing a preventive measure and establishing additional restrictions) on the grounds specified in Article 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the suspect has no intention of hiding from the criminal prosecution authorities or the court, to obstruct an objective investigation of the case, its consideration in court,

Under Part 1-1 of Article 136 of the criminal Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. When choosing a preventive measure for a suspect, we ask you to consider the possibility of applying a preventive measure not related to isolation from society, taking into account the above circumstances, if possible.

There are no sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect is hiding from the criminal prosecution authorities or the court, either interferes with an objective investigation of the case, or discusses it in court, or continues to engage in criminal activity.

During the preliminary investigation, the investigation did not submit to the court any letters or other procedural documents restricting the movement of E. M. K. from the territory of the village or district.

The reason for the only visit of E. M. K. to Almaty, poor health and improper treatment in the Shu district, we submitted all the medical documents to the investigating court with a defense tarp. Diagnosis: (G99.2) myelopathy, classified in other categories (osteochondrosis of the lumbar spine). Foraminal sequestered hernia L4-L5 hernia, with compression L4 hernia. Coreshkovy compression syndrome L4 sprava. Hyperalgic syndrome, osteochondrosis 2 stepeni.

In accordance with Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a suspect, his lawyer, legal representative, victim, his legal representative, representative, a person whose rights and freedoms are directly affected by the act of the investigating judge, has the right to appeal against the decision, sanction of the investigating judge on the detention of a suspect and other investigative actions.

Based on the above, in accordance with Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

I ASK THE COURT:

* Cancellation of the decision of the investigating judge of the Shu District Court of Zhambyl region of May 20, 2025 on the absentee sanction of a preventive measure in the form of "detention under guard" against the suspect E. M. K. Murzalipov B. M.;

* Cancellation of the decision of the investigating judge of the Shu District Court of Zhambyl region Myrzalipov B. M. on the sanction of a preventive measure in the form of "detention under guard" for 2 months against the suspect E. M. K. dated June 27, 2025;

* Suspect E. M. K - release from the pre-trial detention center and apply a preventive measure in relation to him, not related to detention.

With respect,

Defender G. T. Sarzhanov

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases