Calcutta High Court Denies Bail to Sharmistha Panoli Over Allegedly Offensive Social Media Post
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday declined to grant interim bail to 22-year-old Sharmistha Panoli, who Kolkata Police arrested for allegedly posting offensive and communally charged content on social media following Operation Sindoor, India’s military strike on Pakistan-based terror camps.
Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, presiding over the matter, refused to interfere with the trial court’s decision to remand Panoli to 14 days of judicial custody.
While directing the state government to produce the case diary, the judge scheduled the matter to be heard by a vacation bench.
“This video was made and heard widely on social media. It hurt the sentiments of a section of people. Yes, we have freedom of speech, but that does not give someone the right to cause hurt. India is a diverse country — we must remain cautious.
Let the case be heard day after tomorrow. Heavens will not fall,” Justice Chatterjee remarked while turning down the plea for immediate relief.
Panoli’s legal counsel argued that she is a student diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and that her condition makes her especially vulnerable in jail.
The lawyer also stated that she was being denied basic amenities at the correctional facility.
The petition also questioned the merit of the case itself. “Does the FIR reveal a cognizable offence? What exactly is a blasphemous comment in this context?
Her post was taken down immediately. This seems more like a case of political witch-hunting,” the defence counsel told the court.
Panoli was arrested in Gurugram and brought to Kolkata on a transit remand. Her family, originally based in Kolkata, reportedly moved to Gurugram due to threats and harassment following the video’s circulation.
The counsel told the court that people had gathered outside her Kolkata home and that she and her family had received abusive messages, prompting them to leave and switch off their phones for safety.
Representing the Bengal government, senior advocate and Serampore MP Kalyan Banerjee asserted that proper legal procedures were followed.
“A case was filed under Sections 196(1)(a), 299, 352, and 353(1)(c) of the IPC, as the video was found to have hurt religious sentiments.
Notices were served, but the flat was locked, prompting police to proceed with the arrest in Gurugram,” Banerjee stated. He also sought the court’s permission to submit an affidavit on behalf of the state.
Concluding the hearing, Justice Chatterjee instructed that Panoli should be provided with all necessary amenities during her time in custody.
