The Bijelo Polje High Court will have to explain more precisely whether MB tried to kill their own brother in the house or in front of their relative's house, but also what their blood relationship is with that person from Kolašin, and to be careful how they enter dates, because their decision on July 25th, which extended the detention of the twenty-two-year-old, was revoked due to errors.
They will also have to explain in detail whether the suspect fled after wounding his brother.
This follows from the decision of the Court of Appeal, which accepted the appeal of the defense attorney of the man from Kolašin and returned the case for retrial.
The 26-year-old was arrested on June XNUMX in Kolašin on suspicion of stabbing his brother the day before, after a brief verbal altercation.
The prosecutor at the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Bijelo Polje qualified the criminal offense as attempted murder, and by the decision of the investigating judge of the Bijelo Polje Higher Court, MB was sent into custody on June 29th.
When typing the decision that extended his detention for two months on July 25th, the Higher Court in Bijelo Polje made several material errors - they wrote that the detention could last until September 25th of last year, and it is unclear whether MB wounded his brother in front of his relative's house. MR or in his house, but also whether that Kolašinac is their aunt's or uncle's brother.
"The appeal of the defense counsel of the defendant MB, attorney, is upheld." HL from BP, so the Decision of the Higher Court... of 25 July 7 is revoked and the case is returned to the same court for a new decision," it is written in the court documents that "Vijesti" has access to.
The Appellate Court Panel assessed that the Decision on the extension of detention, which they revoked, was issued in violation of the provisions of criminal procedure.
"Because in the contested Decision regarding the grounds for detention under Art. 175, paragraph 1, item 1 of the CPC, there are insufficient reasons regarding the fact of the defendant's removal from the scene, while regarding the grounds for detention under Art. 175, paragraph 1, item 4 of the CPC, the reasons regarding the decisive facts are unclear and significantly contradictory," wrote the judges of the Court of Appeal.
They noted that the first instance court stated in the contested Decision that the defendant left the scene after injuring his brother, but that they did not state how they determined this:
"...And in this regard, whether the defendant took active action, in the sense of fleeing and hiding or simply moving away, for what reason it is unclear what the court had in mind in this particular case, because the contested Decision does not have sufficient reasons in that regard, since the first instance court assesses the aforementioned fact in conjunction with other facts when it finds that there is a basis for detention under Art. 175, paragraph 1, item 1, or circumstances indicating a risk of flight," the judges of the Court of Appeal conclude.
They also state that the reasons for ordering detention due to the particularly serious manner of committing the criminal offense or its consequences are unclear and contradictory:
"The existence of this ground for detention is based on the fact that in the specific case, in addition to the existence of an objective condition, there are also serious circumstances of the act that give it the character of a particularly serious one, in the manner of its commission, given that there is a reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed the criminal offense in the family home of the defendant's uncle, against his own brother. This court indicates that the Order on Conducting an Investigation by the Higher State Prosecutor's Office... would result in the event in question taking place in the family home owned by MR, and that in the proposal for the extension of detention for the defendant BM of 23. 7. 2025, in the description of the act of commission it is stated that the event in question took place in front of the family home owned by MR, which would also result from the case file. In addition, it would result from the case file that MR is the defendant's aunt's brother, and not his uncle, as the first instance court states in the contested Decision, which makes the first instance court's reasons in that part contradictory," it is written in The solution.
The judges assessed that it was also unclear how the first instance court linked the fact that MB wounded his brother to the manner in which the criminal offense was committed.
Bonus video:
