Calcutta High Court granted bail to law student Sharmistha Panoli, calling her arrest “mechanical” and in violation of legal safeguards. The Court also directed police protection citing threats and obscene messages over her social media posts.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court vacation bench led by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury granted bail to Sharmishta Panoli, a law student of Symbiosis Law School, Pune, arrested over allegations of hurting religious sentiments.
The Court held that prima facie her arrest was not in compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and that the arrest warrant appeared to be issued in a mechanical manner.
The Court noted,
“Although when the writ petition was filed since the order dated 22nd May 2025 issued by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not available there is no formal challenge to the same, but a Court exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction cannot keep its eyes shut to such an irregularity.”
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed,
“The warrant of arrest which has been issued appears to be 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-cognizable.”
The Bench further added,
“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 Judge added that the warrant itself lacked reasoning and failed to reflect the satisfaction required before authorising arrest and detention.
The controversy began after a complaint was filed by the Rashidi Foundation, alleging that Sharmishta made blasphemous remarks on Prophet Muhammad on social media. This led to Garden Reach PS Case No. 136 dated May 15, 2025, being registered under Sections 196(1)(a), 299, 352, and 353(1)(c) of the BNSS.
However, the Court observed that neither the complaint nor the FIR specified the exact nature of the comments made or how they injured religious sentiments.
Senior Advocate DP Singh, appearing for Sharmistha, argued that her arrest was illegal and said the video in question had been deleted the next day. He also explained that the remarks were aimed at Pakistan and made in the heat of the moment.
Justice Chowdhury asked the state,
“What arrest have been made basis her complaint? This is about modesty of the young lady. You would be ashamed to see all these. I am saying this in public. After all she is a law student.”
Senior Advocate D.P. Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that she had in fact filed police complaints on May 15 and 17 over threats and sexually explicit emails she received, which forced her to move to Gurugram.
The Court acknowledged,
“From the complaint, there is nothing which could enlighten as to the exact comments made or published by the petitioner and to what extent the same would stand to injure.”
The judge took serious note of procedural lapses and remarked, “Warrant doesn’t give any grounds,” and later clarified, when the state claimed permission to arrest had been granted,
“This ‘may’ or ‘liberty’ shall never be construed as ‘shall’,”
The High Court, which had initially allowed media and observers to follow the case closely, suddenly stopped the live feed midway through the proceedings, citing sensitivity around ongoing arguments and potential misreporting.
No formal reason was disclosed in open court.
After hearing both sides, the High Court concluded that a prima facie case for granting bail existed and ordered Sharmistha’s release, marking a crucial moment in the ongoing legal debate around student expression, procedural fairness, and freedom of speech.
Granting bail, the Court said,
“Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary… noting that the petitioner is a law student and is of tender age… the electronic gadgets having been seized, there is little scope to tamper with the evidence.” She was granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 and directed to cooperate with the investigation.
The Court also ordered,
“The police authorities should afford proper police protection to the petitioner”
In light of the crowd gatherings noted in the case diary and her previous complaints. The matter has been listed for further consideration after the summer break, with liberty to mention it before the regular bench.
Earlier, Law student Sharmistha Panoli was denied ad interim bail by the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday.
She had approached the court challenging her 14-day judicial custody after being arrested for allegedly uploading a video that hurt religious sentiments, linked to the controversial #OperationSindoor.
The case was heard by Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, who presided over intense arguments between the petitioner and the state.
While hearing the matter, the Court remarked, “Heavens will not fall in two days,” indicating that the urgency shown by the petitioner was not justified.
The bench denied the request for immediate relief, stating that the matter would be taken up in due course as per legal procedure.
The incident originated from a video Panoli posted on May 14, 2025, in response to a question from a Pakistani follower regarding India’s military actions after the Pahalgam terror attack.
The video reportedly included inflammatory and derogatory comments about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), quickly going viral and resulting in a strong criticism, including death and rape threats aimed at Panoli.
Panoli was arrested by the Kolkata Police in Gurgaon, Haryana, on May 30. She was then transported to Kolkata under transit remand and has been placed in judicial custody until June 13.
After her arrest, Panoli was brought before a Kolkata court and placed in judicial custody until June 13.
Case Title: SHAMISHTA PANOLI @ SHARMISHTA PANOLI RAJ vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS., WPA/12361/2025
Read Attachment