Bail ruling challenge to be heard on Monday
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court will hear on Monday an application by former Batu Kawan Umno vice chairman Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his lawyer Matthias Chang challenging the lower court's ruling not to release them on bail.
Khairuddin, 53, and Chang, 65, are also asking the court to use its power to determine whether Section 124L of the Penal Code is included under Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma).
Justice Mohd Azman Husin fixed Oct 19 to hear the matter in the presence of Khairuddin and Chang's lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla and Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohd Masri Daud yesterday.
In their notice of motion filed yesterday, Khairuddin and Chang sought an order that their charge under Section 124L of the Penal Code was not included as a charge to go for trial under Sosma.
The two applicants also asked to be released on a reasonable bail and other order considered fair by the court.
They filed the motion on the grounds that the decision made by the magistrate to let the charge be read without transferring immediately to the High Court to enable the court to record their plea, was invalid and defective.
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court will hear on Monday an application by former Batu Kawan Umno vice chairman Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his lawyer Matthias Chang challenging the lower court's ruling not to release them on bail.
Khairuddin, 53, and Chang, 65, are also asking the court to use its power to determine whether Section 124L of the Penal Code is included under Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma).
Justice Mohd Azman Husin fixed Oct 19 to hear the matter in the presence of Khairuddin and Chang's lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla and Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohd Masri Daud yesterday.
In their notice of motion filed yesterday, Khairuddin and Chang sought an order that their charge under Section 124L of the Penal Code was not included as a charge to go for trial under Sosma.
The two applicants also asked to be released on a reasonable bail and other order considered fair by the court.
They filed the motion on the grounds that the decision made by the magistrate to let the charge be read without transferring immediately to the High Court to enable the court to record their plea, was invalid and defective.
