Today, On 5th June, Calcutta High Court grants interim bail to law student Sharmistha Panoli, arrested over a video shared during Operation Sindoor. She had moved the court under Article 226 after being denied bail and sent to police custody.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court granted interim bail to law student Sharmistha Panoli, who was arrested in connection with a controversial video shared during the Operation Sindoor discussions.
The video allegedly contained remarks that were seen as offensive to the Muslim community.
Sharmistha had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution after her earlier bail plea was rejected and she was remanded to police custody..
During the hearing, the Bengal Police submitted that “the petitioner, who was evading arrest, was apprehended outside the state,” and defended their actions by saying, “all procedures followed,” and that “the ground of arrest was also given.”
However, Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury was not satisfied and questioned,
“Where is ground of arrest, tell me?”
He stated,
“Ground is warrant of arrest? Is that suffice?”
In a critical observation, Justice Chowdhury said,
“Simply because warrant was issued we can’t imagine that ground of arrest was given.”
He also made it clear,
“At this stage Sharmishtha is not required to know the contents of diary, but certainly she needs to know the ground of arrest, which state needs to prove in my court.”
Senior Advocate D.P. Singh, representing Sharmistha, argued that the arrest was illegal and said,
“There was something said in the heat and I deleted it the next day.”
He insisted,
“This is not qualify mylord blasphemy. Her target audience was Pakistan. These are young students mylord.”
The court was informed that Sharmistha had also filed an FIR citing threats to her life.
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.”
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’,”
In a powerful remark addressing the state’s failure to act on Sharmistha’s own complaint, the judge asked,
“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.”
As Senior Advocate D.P. Singh argued that her arrest was illegal and that she had been under threat, he added that she was compelled to leave for Delhi at midnight because her home and her father’s address were being identified and circulated.
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.
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.
The incident has caused political controversy, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) condemning the arrest, highlighting that Panoli had deleted the video and issued an apology. Reports of Khan’s disappearance emerged following multiple complaints lodged against him in various locations, including Kolkata.
Case Title: SHAMISHTA PANOLI @ SHARMISHTA PANOLI RAJ vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS., WPA/12361/2025
Read Attachment