The Calcutta High Court on Thursday, June 5, 2025, granted interim bail to Sharmistha Panoli, a 22-year-old law student and social media influencer, who was arrested for allegedly posting an "offensive" video containing "communal" statements. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury granted the interim bail upon the condition of a security bond of ₹10,000.
Panoli's arrest stemmed from a video she posted on social media platform Instagram, where she allegedly made derogatory remarks about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad in response to a question from a Pakistani follower regarding India's military response to the Pahalgam terror attack, which is related to Operation Sindoor. The video, which was later deleted after Panoli faced backlash, sparked widespread controversy and led to an FIR being lodged against her at the Garden Reach Police Station in Kolkata on May 15, 2025. She was arrested on May 30 from a hotel in Gurugram, Haryana, and subsequently sent to judicial custody.
During the hearing, Justice Chowdhury emphasized several factors that influenced the decision to grant interim bail. He noted the gravity of the offense but also took into account Panoli's young age as a 22-year-old law student. The court also considered the submission from her counsel that she was ready to cooperate with the investigation. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that the electronic gadgets related to the case had already been seized, reducing the scope for tampering with evidence.
In addition to granting bail, Justice Chowdhury instructed the police to provide "appropriate protection" to Panoli, acknowledging the threats she had reportedly received. The court also stipulated that Panoli must surrender her passport and cannot leave the country without prior court permission. If her education requires her to travel abroad, she would need to seek permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The court also raised concerns about the manner in which the arrest warrant was issued, suggesting it appeared to be "mechanical." Justice Chowdhury questioned whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offense and noted the absence of the video in the case diary. The court further inquired whether the grounds for arrest were adequately served to the accused, referencing Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS 2023, while noting that this issue may require further consideration.
Panoli's father, Prithviraj Panoli, expressed his happiness and relief at the court's decision. He also revealed that his daughter has kidney problems and Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), requiring her to take medication. He noted the difficulties she faced in jail due to the lack of access to her prescription medication. He also stated that the family had disapproved of some of her social media content and had asked her to remove the video that led to her arrest.
The Advocate General (AG) representing the state had argued that Panoli was on the run and was apprehended outside the state. The AG also stated that the police had gone to her residence to serve notice but could not find her, leading to the issuance of an arrest warrant. However, the court remained unconvinced and proceeded to grant interim bail, emphasizing the need for a fair and just legal process.
The case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding freedom of speech, the responsible use of social media, and the importance of protecting religious sentiments in a diverse society.
