BREAKING | Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Bail To Law Student Sharmistha Panoli In Offensive Video Case

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday (June 5)  granted interim bail to law student Sharmishta Panoli in her plea seeking urgent relief after she was arrested for posting an allegedly offensive video targeting Muslims in light of Operation Sindoor. 

At the earlier hearing, the court had denied interim bail to Panoli and advised her that freedom of speech doesn't mean that she could hurt the religious feelings of others.

Panoli, a law student, had allegedly posted blasphemous remarks against Prophet Mohammad on Instagram and X (formerly Twitter). Panoli, after receiving backlash over the statements, deleted the blasphemous content and published an apology on the social media platform 'X', but was arrested in Gurugram. An FIR was registered against her on May 15, 2025 and warrants were issued just two days later on May 17, 2025. In her plea, Panoli also challenged the remand order passed by the Trial Court, in which she was remanded to 14 days in judicial custody.

Advocate General Kishore Datta, appearing for the State, submitted before Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury that Panoli was on the run and apprehended from outside the state.

It was submitted that regular bail was not granted, and then she was sent to judicial custody by the magistrate. It was argued that ordinarily the remedy is to pray for regular bail, but the court was approached under Article 226.

The court thereafter asked the State to show the FIR from the case diary. The Advocate General submitted that they had highlighted certain disturbances that took place due to the remarks being made.

The advocate general then requested that the matter be placed before the regular bench.

At this stage the court orally said, "There was some observations made by the coordinate bench. So this means either I observe in favour or against the petitioner. Although another person is in the chair doesn't mean matter wasn't heard".

The advocate general submitted that if a complaint discloses a cognizable offence the police must register an FIR regardless of the veracity of the allegation. He said that the same was done in the present case and once FIR is registered the "accused must cooperate".

The state submitted that the Police went to Panoli's residence, but she was not found there. At this stag,e the court was told that it was Panloi's case that the arrest was improper because notice had not been served.

On the court's query as to why Panoli approached the High Court instead of claiming regular bail, Senior Advocate DP Singh appearing for Panoli submitted, "because it is a violation of my fundamental rights. A student from Pune was granted bail. Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was also granted bail. I deleted my video on the next day".

Senior Counsel Singh submitted that the complaint doesn't disclose a cognizable offence as "Blasphemy is not in the law of the land".

Singh further said that the petitioner was responding to a "Pakistani girl who she was talking to on social media". He submitted that Panoli is a fourth year student of law, who had removed the video in question and had apologised the very next day.

Upon hearing both sides, the court took note of the fact that Panoli's college address and whereabouts had been revealed in the complaint and that she was facing alleged threats due to the remarks made by her.

Accordingly, the court held that no further custodial interrogation of Panoli was needed and that she could be released from custody. Thus, it granted her interim bail with a bond, and directed her to confirm the same from the magistrate and cooperate with the investigation.

The court also ordered the state police to provide Panoli protection in case she is faced by any threats due to her posts.

Case: SHAMISHTA PANOLI @ SHARMISHTA PANOLI RAJ VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Case No: WPA/12361/2025