According to the published case materials from the State Register of Judicial Acts, Kairat [name changed K.M.] began persistently demanding a meeting with Ainura [name changed A.A.E.] on the night of October 22, 2024, with whom he was acquainted. Despite Ainura informing him about her young child's illness and that she could not leave the house, Kairat continued to call and disturb her.
Fearing for her safety, Ainura decided to fly to her parents in the Batken region and headed to Manas International Airport. At that moment, she deceived Kairat by telling him that she was not at home and was taking a taxi to Batken.
Not believing her, Kairat called a taxi and stated that he was going to go after her. He threatened that if she deceived him, he would find her home and cause a scandal. As a result, Ainura, not knowing what to do, confessed that she was at Manas Airport to avoid his visit to her home.
Angered, Kairat insulted her and returned. On the same day at 08:30, he appeared at Manas Airport and, seeing Ainura's son, Zh.B.Z., who was there without his mother, deceitfully told the child that his mother was waiting outside. Picking him up, Kairat took the boy outside the airport and drove away.
To conceal his actions, he turned off his phone and drove to Bishkek, after which he hired a taxi and took the child to his relatives' house in another city.
The Sokuluk District Court of the Chui Region found Kairat guilty of kidnapping under paragraph 2 of part 2 of article 165 of the Criminal Code on December 25, 2024, and sentenced him to 7 years of imprisonment in a general regime correctional facility.
In accordance with article 82 of the Criminal Code, he was placed under probation for 3 years and was released from serving his sentence. The measure of restraint in the form of arrest was changed to house arrest, which could be lifted after the verdict came into legal force.
On June 26, 2025, the Chui Regional Court overturned the verdict of the Sokuluk District Court.
Kairat was acquitted under paragraph 1 of part 4 of article 165 of the Criminal Code due to the absence of a crime in his actions.
He was also informed of his right to rehabilitation in accordance with article 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and a notification was sent regarding the procedure for compensation for damages caused by the criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court left the decision of the regional court unchanged.
