Calcutta High Court grants interim bail to Sharmishta Panoli in case over social media remarks on Muslims

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim bail to Shamishta Panoli, the 22-year-old law student who was booked for posting hurtful comments against the Muslim community on social media [Shamishta Panoli @Sharmishta Panoli Raj v. State of West Bengal & Ors]..Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury said the arrest warrant against Panoli was issued in a mechanical manner."The order and consequential warrant of arrest, in my view does not satisfy the requirement of satisfaction of the Magistrate to authorize detention especially when the offence punishable was by imprisonment which may extend only up to three years and one of the Section charged was bailable and non congnizable," the Court said..The Court also questioned whether there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of serving grounds for arrest to the accused. "There also appears to be no appropriate compliance of the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India read with Section 47 of the BNSS 2023, though the said issue may require further consideration upon exchange of affidavits."Further, the Court also took into consideration Panoli's age to grant her the relief. She has been asked to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and not leave the country without court permission."Thus, noting the gravity of the offence and noting that the petitioner is a law student and is of tender age including the fact that the electronic gadgets having been seized there is little scope to tamper with the evidence and also considering the submissions of Mr. [DP] Singh, learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate and participate in the investigation at this stage, without prejudice to her rights in the writ petition, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary," it said..Meanwhile, the Court also directed the police to provide protection to Panoli and investigate the threats against her."Having regard to the complaint of the petitioner dated 15th May 2025 and the submission made by the Learned Advocate General that a case has been registered, I am of the view that the police authorities should afford proper police protection to the petitioner. The police must enquire into the above complaint and file a report, as regards the progress of the investigation before the Court when the matter is taken up next.".Appearing for the State, Advocate General (AG) Kishore Datta earlier asked that the matter be placed before the regular bench. However, the vacation bench said,"There are observations made by previous bench. I have to take up...Different person is sitting today, but that does not make the situation different."On the argument that notice was not served on Panoli before her arrest, the AG said,"Police goes to serve notice on 18th, she was not at her residence.".He went on to say that all formalities were completed during the arrest procedure and that the State "had no axe to grind". The Court then stated,"You have argued that attempts were made to serve notice but accused did not appear or present herself for investigation, which prompted you to seek warrant. In the light of this...I have seen arrest memo...warrant does not disclose any grounds."In response, AG Datta cited a Supreme Court judgment ruling that warrant is sufficient as grounds of arrest. He added,"I am not saying writ court cannot grant bail, but when petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody, can the writ court be invited for grant of bail?".After the AG concluded, the Court asked Senior Advocate DP Singh, appearing for Panoli,"Why before this Court? You could have gone to criminal court."Singh cited two recent instances where the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court called for the release of persons booked for social media posts on Operation Sindoor. He argued,"Arrest is illegal, registration of FIR is illegal because no cognizable offence disclosed...Her target audience was a Pakistani girl. These are young students. She is a student of law. She would have been a lawyer. I don't know what will happen now...".Midway through the hearing, our reporter was removed from the video conference on Zoom. Senior Advocate Rajdeep Mazumder, who also appeared for Panoli, confirmed the passing of the interim order..The Court was hearing a plea filed by Panoli seeking quashing of the case registered against her. She also prayed that her arrest be declared illegal. A Kolkata court had on May 31 sent Panoli to 14 days of judicial custody over an allegedly derogatory video hurting the religious sentiments of the Muslim community.The video was posted by Panoli on Instagram on May 14 in response to a question from a Pakistani follower regarding India’s military response to the Pahalgam terror attack. In the video, she allegedly made derogatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Muhammad. The video soon went viral and sparked widespread backlash.Panoli later said she received death and rape threats following the post. On May 15, she deleted the video and issued a public apology on X.The Kolkata Police arrested the 22-year-old law student from Pune on the night of May 30 in Gurugram, Haryana..On Tuesday, the Court had remarked that she should have been cautious in her comments."Admittedly, in a country like ours, people of different faiths, communities, and linguistic backgrounds coexist. Therefore, one should exercise caution when making any comments in the media or before the public. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a series of judgments, has condemned incidents of hate speech, dog-whistling, and making disparaging remarks that may hurt any section of the people of our country," Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee said in the order passed on June 3.However, the Court had directed the State to ensure that no FIRs are registered against her for the same comments..Senior Advocates DP Singh, Nilanjan Bhattacharjee and Rajdeep Mazumder with advocates Kabir Shankar Bose, Brajesh Jha, Vikash Singh, Satadru Lahiri, Mayukh Mukherjee, Mannu Mishra, Arushi Rathode, Kanchan Jaju, Sudarshan Kumar Agarwal, Vanshika Lamba, Rahul Verma, Ditsha Dhar, Ditsha Dhar, Tejasuri Jatt, Soumya Sarkar, Sagnika Banerjee, Debanea Das and Swheta Maity represented Panoli.Advocate General Kishore Dutta with advocates Swapan Banerjee, Sumitra Slaeni, Diptendra Narayan Banerjee, Arka Kumar Nag and Soumen Chatterjee represented the State..[Read Order]