Today, On 5th June, In the Sharmistha Panoli case, Calcutta High Court told Bengal Police, “You would be ashamed, this is about modesty of the young lady,” questioning her arrest and raising concerns about procedural fairness and dignity.
While hearing the bail plea of law student Sharmistha Panoli, the Calcutta High Court, led by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, raised serious concerns about how the Bengal Police handled her arrest and other legal procedures.
The hearing began with the judge asking the police to show the FIR from the case diary. When the police requested the matter be placed before a regular bench, Justice Chowdhury firmly responded, “No we will hear it.”
The Bengal State told the court that the FIR was based on a complaint and that the accused was not found at home when police tried to serve notice. They claimed all procedures were followed and that a warrant was issued when she couldn’t be traced.
However, when the state submitted that the warrant itself served as the ground of arrest, Justice Chowdhury challenged this view,
“Where is ground of arrest tell me? Ground is warrant of arrest? Is that suffice?”
When the state cited a Supreme Court ruling to support their claim, the judge said, “Ok, let me see.”
He made it clear that “simply because warrant was issued we can’t imagine that ground of arrest was given.”
Emphasising due process, he added,
“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 proof in my court.”
The judge also pointed out that a warrant alone “doesn’t give any grounds.”
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.
When DP Singh described the threats Sharmistha faced and how her personal details were exposed, 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 also said, “This may or liberty shall never be construed as shall,” questioning the state’s claim that liberty to arrest was equal to permission to arrest.
With these observations, the Calcutta High Court granted Sharmistha Panoli interim bail, highlighting lapses in procedure and underlining the court’s commitment to fairness and dignity.
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