The Calcutta High Court on June 5, 2025, granted interim bail to law student Sharmistha Panoli, who was arrested for allegedly posting a video on social media that targeted the Muslim community. The arrest was made following the circulation of remarks considered offensive to Prophet Mohammad, which were posted by Panoli on Instagram and X (formerly Twitter), in response to the ongoing Operation Sindoor. The student had deleted the posts and issued a public apology on X, but was taken into custody from Gurugram.
Read Also:-Calcutta High Court Emphasizes Pet Owners' Duty to Prevent Harm from Animals
The case has drawn public and legal attention due to the nature of the content, the action taken by the police, and the broader questions surrounding freedom of speech. Panoli was booked under a First Information Report (FIR) dated May 15, 2025, and warrants were issued on May 17, 2025. Her plea before the High Court also challenged the remand order of the Trial Court that placed her in judicial custody for 14 days.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean one can hurt the religious feelings of others, the High Court had earlier remarked when initially denying interim bail to Panoli.
During the latest hearing, Advocate General Kishore Datta, appearing for the State, informed Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury that Panoli had not been found at her residence when police visited and was later apprehended outside West Bengal. He submitted that the FIR had been rightly registered after disturbances were caused by her online remarks, and that the police were obligated to act upon a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence.
Once an FIR is registered, the accused must cooperate,the Advocate General stated.
The court questioned why Panoli had approached the High Court under Article 226 instead of applying for regular bail before the lower court. In response, Senior Advocate DP Singh, representing Panoli, argued that her fundamental rights had been violated and referred to other cases where similar relief had been granted.
A student from Pune was granted bail. Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was also granted bail. I deleted my video the next day, Singh submitted on behalf of Panoli.
He further argued that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence and that blasphemy is not a recognized crime under Indian law. According to Singh, Panoli’s comments were directed at a Pakistani individual she had been speaking with on social media, and not meant to provoke public disorder. He also pointed out that Panoli, a fourth-year law student, had voluntarily removed the controversial content and issued a public apology promptly.
Read Also:-Calcutta High Court Upholds Automatic Compensation for Dependents of Deceased Workers
The court noted that Panoli’s personal and academic details had been included in the complaint and acknowledged the threats she was allegedly receiving following the viral video.
"There was some observation 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 judge remarked during the hearing.
After considering all arguments and documents, the court concluded that no further custodial interrogation of Panoli was necessary. Accordingly, the High Court allowed her interim bail with bond conditions and directed her to present the same before the magistrate and cooperate with the investigation.
Case: SHAMISHTA PANOLI @ SHARMISHTA PANOLI RAJ VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Case No: WPA/12361/2025
