Court grants bail to hairstylist, cites progress in investigation

23/09/2026

Jammu, Sep 21: The Court of 2nd Addi-tional Sessions Judge Jammu has admitted Rajeev Kumar, a professional hairstylist, to bail in a case registered at Police Station Gan-dhi Nagar under Secti-ons 74, 75, 78, 79 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The order was passed by 2nd Addit-ional Sessions Judge Anoop Kumar Sharma on September 21. Kumar was represented by A.K. Sawhney Advocate & Associates, while the prosecution was represented by Raj Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The record shows that the applicant had initially been granted interim anticipatory bail by the court on August 3, 2026, following which a report was sought from the concerned police station. The police report stated that FIR No. 195/ 2026 had been registered against him under Sections 74, 75, 78, 79 and 351 BNS.
According to the police report, the complainant, a staff member at Hair Master Salon, alleged that Kumar had misbehaved with and harassed her on different occasions. The allegations related to incidents stated to have occurred on January 26, May 28 and June 8, 2026. The investigation had included recording the complainant's statement and seizure of relevant material, including an alleged apology dated January 30, 2026.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, submitting that the alleged offences were against women and that there was a possibility of repetition of the alleged conduct, absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence.
Appearing for Kumar, AseemSawhney, Senior Advocate, argued that he had been falsely implicated after leaving his previous employment. He disputed the alleged apology and submitted that Kumar had been made to sign a blank paper. He also relied upon a plea of alibi concerning the June 8 allegation, submitting that Kumar was at Patnitop with his family and had digital evidence in support of the claim.
The court observed that the alleged January occurrence had not been reported at the time and that the circumstances surrounding the alleged settlement were matters for the investigating officer to verify. It similarly observed that the plea regarding the June 8 incident was a matter for investigation. The court noted that the investigation had considerably progressed and the complainant's statement had already been recorded. It further observed that there was no report of the applicant having failed to cooperate with the investigation or having influenced or tampered with prosecution evidence.
The court noted that the alleged offences carried punishment of up to seven years and referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, observing that arrest in offences carrying punishment up to seven years should not be effected routinely and that the investigating agency must establish reasons requiring arrest or custodial interrogation.
Referring to Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the court reiterated that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of an accused during trial and that detention before conviction should not become punitive.
Finding that the applicant had made out a case for grant of bail, the court admitted him to bail on furnishing a Rs. 50,000 bail bond.
The court directed Kumar to cooperate fully with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer whenever required. He was also directed not to directly or indirectly induce, threaten or influence any person acquainted with the facts of the case and not to leave the territorial jurisdiction of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the court.
The bail application was accordingly disposed of.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty