Meenakshi Shukla
The Calcutta High Court on June 5, 2025, granted interim bail to Sharmistha Panoli, a law student from Symbiosis Law School, Pune, who was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs alleging she made blasphemous remarks about the Prophet of Islam on social media platforms X and Instagram, post Operation Sindoor. This case is being dealt with by a vacation bench, consisting of Justice Raju Basu Chowdhury.
While hearing Shamishta Panoli @ Sharmishta Panoli Raj Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. W.P.A. No. 12361 of 2025, Justice R.B. Chowdhury emphasised that custodial interrogation was not warranted given the nature of the offence and the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate. Noting the tender age and academic commitments of the petitioner, the Court directed her release on a bail bond of ₹10,000.
The case stemmed from a complaint by Rashidi Foundation on May 14, 2025, alleging that Panoli posted derogatory content about Prophet Muhammad. This led to the registration of four FIRs across the State. The Court invoked the T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (Case No. 136 of 2025) principle to stay all FIRs except the earliest one, at Garden Reach Police Station Case No. 136 of 2025.
Significantly, the Court also found procedural lapses in the manner of Panoli’s arrest. The warrant issued on May 22 was described as “mechanical,” lacking judicial satisfaction on the need for arrest. The Judge observed:
“The warrant of arrest… does not satisfy the requirement of satisfaction of the Magistrate to authorise detention, especially when the offence punishable was by imprisonment which may extend only up to three years…”
Further, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana 2025 INSC 162, the Court underscored the mandatory requirement of informing the accused of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and Section 47 BNSS, 2023:
“The Information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted…”
The Court noted that Panoli’s “intimation of grounds of arrest” merely stated that a warrant had been issued, which did not satisfy the constitutional mandate. Moreover, in view of Panoli’s prior police complaint on 15th May, 2025, as also on 17th May, 202, alleging threats and the circulation of sexually-explicit content which had been e-mailed to her and aimed at outraging her modesty, the Calcutta High Court directed the Kolkata Police to extend protective measures and police protection:
“I am of the view that the police authorities should afford proper police protection to the petitioner. The police must enquire into the above complaint and file a report, as regards the progress of the investigation before the Court when the matter is taken up next,” the Court said.
The Court will take up the matter post the summer recess for further proceedings.
In the meantime, Panoli has decided to temporarily step away from social media and focus on completing her law degree. Her father confirmed this decision, stating that she intends to be more cautious about her words and actions in the future.
Case Name– Shamishta Panoli @ Sharmishta Panoli Raj v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number- W.P.A. No. 12361 of 2025
Bench– Justice Raju Basu Chowdhury
Click this to access the order
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
