The Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim bail to Sharmistha Panoli, a fourth-year law student, who was arrested last month for allegedly posting a video on social media containing remarks deemed offensive to the Muslim community and Prophet Mohammad.
The arrest was made following the circulation of the video amid the backdrop of Operation Sindoor, which triggered public outcry and legal debate over the boundaries of free speech in India. Panoli had posted the video on Instagram and X (formerly Twitter), later deleted it, and issued a public apology on social media. Despite this, she was taken into custody from Gurugram and produced before a trial court, which had sent her to 14-day judicial custody.
Background and Arrest
Panoli was booked under an FIR dated May 15, 2025, with arrest warrants issued on May 17. The FIR was filed after her remarks reportedly led to disturbances, prompting the police to act. During an earlier hearing, the Calcutta High Court had denied her interim bail, observing that “freedom of speech doesn’t mean one can hurt the religious feelings of others.”
During the latest hearing, Advocate General Kishore Datta, representing the State, submitted that Panoli had evaded initial police efforts by not being present at her residence and was later apprehended outside West Bengal. He contended that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, and the police were duty-bound to investigate.
Arguments in Court
Panoli’s counsel, Senior Advocate D.P. Singh, challenged the FIR and the subsequent remand order of the trial court. He argued that the FIR failed to disclose a cognizable offence and stressed that “blasphemy” is not a crime under Indian law. He also emphasized Panoli’s cooperation, her deletion of the video, and the apology issued shortly after the post went live.
Singh submitted that Panoli’s comments were not intended to provoke communal disharmony but were directed toward a Pakistani individual she had been conversing with online. He referred to precedent cases in which similar relief had been granted, including the recent bail granted to a Pune-based student and Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad.
The judge also took note of the threats Panoli had been receiving and acknowledged that her personal and academic details had been circulated widely in the complaint, intensifying the impact on her.
Court’s Observations and Relief Granted
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury questioned the maintainability of Panoli’s petition under Article 226 of the Constitution instead of applying for regular bail before the trial court. However, acknowledging the submissions made by both sides and the documents on record, the judge concluded that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.
“There was some observation made by the coordinate bench. So this means either I observe in favour or against the petitioner. Although another person is in the chair, doesn’t mean matter wasn’t heard,” the judge remarked during the hearing.
Consequently, the High Court granted interim bail to Panoli, subject to bond conditions, and directed her to present the bail bond before the magistrate and cooperate fully with the investigation.
