The Calcutta High Court has granted interim bail to social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli, who was arrested for allegedly posting a video on social media containing communal comments. The court directed Panoli to furnish a bail bond of ₹10,000.

Panoli, a 22-year-old law student with a significant social media following, was arrested by Kolkata Police from Gurugram, Haryana, on May 30. The arrest followed a complaint alleging that she had posted a now-deleted video that hurt religious sentiments and promoted communal hatred. The police stated that the action was taken after "duly investigating and adhering to legal procedures" because she had been sharing offensive content. They claimed the video was "insulting to the religious belief of a class of citizens of India and amounted to promoting disharmony and hatred between different communities."

Following her arrest, Panoli was remanded to judicial custody until June 13. Her lawyer, Md Shamimuddin, argued that the arrest was illegal and unnecessary, alleging procedural lapses by the Kolkata Police. He pointed out that Panoli's laptop and mobile phone had been seized, and her statement had been recorded, meaning she was no longer required for investigation.

The Calcutta High Court initially rejected Panoli's interim bail plea on June 3, with the bench observing that "freedom of speech does not mean hurting religious sentiments". However, on June 5, the court granted her interim bail after raising concerns about the Bengal Police's handling of her arrest and other legal procedures. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury questioned the grounds for her arrest, stating that a warrant alone "doesn't give any grounds." The court also criticized the police, suggesting they "would be ashamed" and that the case touched upon the "modesty of the young lady,"

Panoli's arrest has sparked considerable controversy, with some legal professionals and political figures deeming it excessive and politically motivated. BJP West Bengal president Sukanta Majumdar alleged that the police's action was rooted in the state government's policy of appeasement and "vote-bank vendetta."

Kolkata Police, however, maintain that they followed due process and that Panoli was not arrested for expressing patriotism or personal belief. They claimed that notices were issued to Panoli, but she was allegedly found to be absconding. The police termed the narrative claiming she was arrested unlawfully as "mischievous and misleading."

Adding another layer to the case, Wajahat Khan, the complainant against Panoli, has reportedly gone missing. His father alleged that the family had been receiving threatening phone calls following Panoli's arrest. Furthermore, complaints have been filed against Khan in different parts of the country, including one by the Shree Ram Swabhiman Parishad, accusing him of making derogatory and inflammatory remarks against the Hindu community on social media.

Panoli's father, Prithviraj Panoli, has refuted the police's claim that his daughter was absconding. He stated that she was in touch with the police until May 26 and that she had approached the cyber cell of Kolkata Police on May 15 to complain about threats she had been receiving following her Instagram posts. He also claimed that the police had not provided him with a copy of the FIR registered against his daughter.

During her time in custody at Alipore women's correctional home, Panoli filed a plea alleging that her basic rights were being denied and that her health was deteriorating, claiming that "proper hygiene is not being maintained." The court had instructed the state to provide basic amenities to Panoli while in custody and restrained authorities from filing new FIRs on the same grounds.