Objection To Period Of Detention - AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE
Aşıkoğlu started his position as the Alanya Public Prosecutor in 2009 and continued until 2013 when he quit his position to initiate his career as an attorney at law.
alanya,hukuk,bürosu,avukat,dava,danışma,mehmet,aşıkoğlu,mehmet aşıkoğlu,savcı,eski,ceza,ticaret,haciz,alacak,borçlar,Mehemet,Aşıkoğlu,alanya,avukat,hukuk,bürosu,alanya avukat, mehmet aşıkoğlu, alanya hukuk bürosu,Kerim Uysal,Kerem Yağdır,ahmet sezer, mustafa demir, hüsnü sert, jale karakaya, murat aydemir, ayşegül yanmaz
17034
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-17034,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.13.0,vc_responsive
 

Objection To Period Of Detention

Objection To Period Of Detention

…….. CRIMINAL COURT

PROSECUTION INVESTIGATION NO : ……/……

OBJECTING TO THE PERIOD OF DETENTION :

TC IDENTIFICATION NUMBER :

ADDRESS :

Defense :

ADDRESS :

Subject: the crime against our client…../……/……. it consists of being detained in history and presenting our reasons that detention is unlawful, especially in terms of duration.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1 -) Our client ………. …….. ; ..…./……/…… date and …….. born; …………………………………….. a resident at the address.

2 -) law enforcement……./……/…… history …………’in ………. Simultaneous raids in the district found the suspects in the vehicle ………..kg drugs and stimulants were found and these drugs and stimulants were confiscated. However, due to the fact that our client is the owner of the vehicle used by the suspects in the proceedings initiated by the Public Prosecutor’s office, our client has been taken into custody along with the suspects.

As stated in our client’s statement in the prosecutor’s office, our client’s vehicle engine was left in the repair shop belonging to the suspects because of the boiling of water. So, our client has no connection to the alleged actions of the suspects.

However, police who came to our client’s house after the raid by law enforcement and did not have a search warrant arrested him and took him away without any information. Our client is unaware of everything that was taken to custody after this arrest …../…../ …… has been in custody for 3 days since.

3 -) as it is known, it is clearly stated in the article of the law that it is possible to prove the crime and only the evidence obtained in accordance with the law and that the evidence obtained in a manner contrary to the law should be rejected.

On the other hand, our client’s detention period has been unlawfully extended.91 Of The Law No. 5271.in the article” detention period shall not exceed twenty-four hours from the moment of arrest, except for the mandatory period to be sent to the nearest judge or court instead of arrest”, an arrangement has been made in the form of; the extension of the detention period and every hour against our client makes our client who is married and has children difficult On the other hand, this matter……. Our client, who is a well-known tradesman and owner of a considerable trading house in his district, is causing irreparable losses in terms of commercial gain.

However, the reasons for arrest are also 100th of the law No. 5271.it is clearly stated in the article.

Accordingly;

“There is a reason for arrest in the following cases::

If there are concrete facts that arouse the suspicion that the suspect or the defendant will flee, hide or escape.

B) the conduct of the suspect or the accused;

Destroying, hiding or altering evidence,
Attempt to exert pressure on witnesses, victims or others,
If there is strong doubt in his matters.”

4 -) as a result of this regulation in Article of law; only our client who leaves his vehicle to the suspect’s repair shop for maintenance, even though he is not aware of the alleged action carried out by the suspects; our client learned about this action in the police station where he was involved by means of his own vehicle.

5 -) again, the conditions under Article 100 and Article 101 of the Criminal Procedure Law No. 5271 have not been met for the arrest to take place. It is not possible to speak of any evidence as to why the judicial review would be insufficient or of any strong suspicion that would lead to our client’s arrest.

Legal reasons: 5271 S.K. m. 91, 92, 95, 100, 101, 102, 118.

Conclusion and claim: for the reasons explained above; …./…../….. we demand by proxy on behalf of our client that the detention decision of the prosecutor’s office be immediately removed and the release of our client based on the reasons explained above to the court. …/…../…..

No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran