The Calcutta High Court Today (June 3) denied interim bail to law student Sharmistha Panoli over her controversial video linked to #OperationSindoor. The Court asked the state to file the case diary, saying “heavens will not fall in two days.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
WEST BENGAL: 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.
Justice Partha opened the hearing with a key question:
“Why arrest is illegal?”
To this, Sharmistha’s lawyer, Kanchan Jaju, said:
“Notice was not issued my lord!”
On behalf of the Kolkata Police, Kalyan Bandopadhyay responded:
“Multiple FIRs filed my lord.”
Justice Partha immediately clarified:
“No further FIRs in this case.”
Jaju sought relief under Supreme Court guidelines:
“Under the guidelines of Supreme Court can I get a bail my lord.”
Justice Partha explained:
“The police wants to come with more material.”
Jaju objected:
“It doesn’t show any offence caused my lord. They say I was not available hence they got warrant of arrest. The next day they arrest me.”
He emphasized that both Sharmistha and her father had visited their local police station.
Bandopadhyay asked the court:
“List it for tomorrow my lord, give us time to put materials.”
Expressing frustration, Jaju said:
“I am facing hostility in your court my lord.”
He pleaded emotionally:
“Imagine what this girl going through.”
Justice Partha commented:
“You have hurt the sentiments of a group of people.”
“You have freedom of speech but doesn’t mean you hurt the people. Our country is full of multiple sections of society. So wait. Tomorrow heavens will not fall.”
He asked:
“You want interim bail now?”
Jaju insisted:
“I will place the law my lord. It will take enquiry my lord to show if they were there or not. I am telling you with proof I was there.”
“Also, my lord, I know sentiments, the Supreme Court also has granted bail on sentiment cases, multiple such issues.”
Justice Partha clarified:
“I am not saying your petition is rejected, we will hear you more with more material on 5th.”
Jaju stressed:
“There are Supreme Court verdicts my lord.”
Justice asked again:
“Why arrest illegal tell me again!”
Jaju replied:
“There is no necessity here to arrest. Read Arnesh Kumar judgement of Supreme Court.”
Bandopadhyay made a sharp remark:
“Let him come and argue from 8 pm to 2 am. We have other cases too.”
[At this point, there was disturbance in court]
Jaju pleaded:
“Listen me my lord.”
Justice Partha firmly said:
“Allow me to speak, what is this?”
He referred to arrest guidelines:
“Read 41 (a), if any condition is fulfilled, and even if max punish is less than 7 yrs, the arrest can be made.”
Jaju responded:
“Let me read my lord.”
He read Section 35(a) and said:
“No condition to arrest is made my lord.”
Justice observed:
“Police wants to show us the material.”
Jaju read further:
“Read 47 my lord. The person arrested needs to be communicated about particulars of reasons for arrest.”
Bandopadhyay countered:
“My lord I will show a recent judgement of J. Pardiwala from SC where if warrant is issued, no reasons for arrest need to be given.”
Still hoping for relief, Jaju said:
“Please give me bail my lord.”
Another lawyer in the room urged:
“Pass the final order my lord. This is just killing time.”
Jaju continued:
“Read a judgement of SC my lord.”
“In warrant my lord there is no mention of ground of arrest. You need to give me liberty my lord.”
Justice Partha asked:
“Tell me which provision of Article 22 has been violated here.”
Jaju read Article 22 aloud.
Then Bandopadhyay responded seriously:
“Very serious allegation made by Jaju (Sharmishtha). This is very serious. We will file an affidavit. Very serious questions of law.”
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates D.P. Singh, Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Rajdeep Mazumder; Advocates Kabir Shankar Bose, Brijesh Jha, Vikash Singh, Satadru Lahiri, Mannu Mishra, Kanchan Jaju, Sudarshan Kumar Agarwal, Vanshika Lamba, Ditsha Dhar, Ujwal Choudhary, Tejswi Jatt, Soumya Sarkar
Respondent/State: Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay; Advocates Swapan Banerjee, Saibal Bapuli, Madhusudan Sur, Sunita Shaw, D.N. Banerjee, Arka Kumar Nag, Soumen Chatterjee
CASE TITLE:
SHAMISHTA PANOLI @ SHARMISHTA PANOLI RAJ vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
WPA/12361/2025
BACKGROUND
Kolkata Police have defended their decision to arrest 22-year-old social media influencer and law student Sharmistha Panoli, saying that everything was done legally and according to proper procedure.
The arrest, which quickly went viral and triggered heated discussions across social media platforms, is now being clarified by the police department amid rising criticism.
Kolkata Police said that Sharmistha Panoli was not taken into custody for her patriotic views or personal opinions. Instead, they said her arrest was based on serious allegations that she shared content on social media which could promote hate among different communities.
“Kolkata Police acted lawfully according to the procedure established by law. The accused was not arrested for expressing patriotism or for personal belief; legal actions were taken for sharing offensive content which promotes hatred among the communities,”
-the department posted on Facebook on Sunday.
The police further claimed that all steps taken were within the law. They said they had issued notices to Panoli earlier, but she was not available and was allegedly absconding, which led to further legal action.
“Consequently, a warrant of arrest was issued by the competent court, following which she was apprehended lawfully from Gurgaon during the day. She was thereafter produced before the appropriate Magistrate and was granted transit remand as per due process of law. Later, the court sent her to judicial custody,”
-they said in the same post.
Panoli had earlier shared videos in which she criticized some Bollywood celebrities for staying silent about Operation Sindoor, a recent military operation. This sparked both support and opposition online.
However, Kolkata Police dismissed claims that they targeted her unfairly, calling such allegations completely false and misleading.
“Some social media accounts are spreading false information that Kolkata Police has unlawfully arrested a law student for opposing Pakistan. This narrative is mischievous and misleading,”
-they added in the Facebook statement.
They also confirmed that a case was registered against her because she allegedly uploaded a video that was seen as:
“Insulting to the religious belief of a class of citizens of India and amounted to promoting disharmony and hatred between different communities.”
The police reminded the public that using abusive language and hate speech on social media should not be confused with the right to free speech, as given under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
On the political front, the arrest has also drawn sharp criticism from the BJP. West Bengal BJP President Sukanta Majumdar strongly condemned the move and accused the ruling party of “appeasement politics”.
