KOLKATA — The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday denied interim bail to social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli, who was arrested on May 30 for allegedly hurting religious sentiments in a video related to Operation Sindoor.
The court also directed the West Bengal government to produce the case diary in connection with Panoli’s arrest on June 5, when her interim bail prayer will be heard again.
The vacation bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Mukherjee directed that the Garden Reach police station case in connection with which Panoli was arrested will be investigated, while proceedings in all other FIRs in this regard will remain stayed till further orders.
Justice Mukherjee observed that one must be careful in making comments in public in a diverse country like India.
“The sentiments of a section of the people of our country have been hurt. We have freedom of speech but that does not mean you hurt sentiments of others. Our country is full of diversity. our Country is diverse, with all persons from different caste, creed, religion, etc… We must be cautious by saying this,” the judge remarked.
The also court said that the state will ensure that no further case will be registered on the alleged action of Panoli.
Petitioner Panoli’s lawyer claimed that no offence is made out in the complaint filed against her for allegedly making some remarks on social media during the Operation Sindoor against Pakistan.
He claimed that there was a war of words on social media between users across India and Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, which was undertaken by India in response to the Pahalgam terror attack that claimed the lives of 26 men, most of whom were tourists.
It was stated that the complaint before the Garden Reach police station in Kolkata claimed that Panoli’s comments on social media hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslim community and caused disharmony among people.
He prayed for quashing of the FIR against Panoli and sought grant of bail to her, claiming that no notice was served to her for appearing before the police for investigation into the complaint.
Panoli’s lawyer, stating that the complaint does not specify what had been said in her social media comments, claimed that it does not disclose any cognisable offence. He stated that the complaint was filed on May 15 and two days later, a warrant of arrest was obtained by the police.
He submitted before the court that Panoli’s family had also complained to the police that she was under threat and that the alleged offensive post had been taken off from the social media on May 8 after having posted it on May 7 night.
The law student was arrested by the Kolkata Police from Gurugram, and was remanded to judicial custody by a Kolkata court till June 13. It was claimed by her lawyer that at least four FIRs were filed in different police stations in the state.
Appearing for the state, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee submitted that the complaint contains cognisable offence and that the alleged post contained an offensive video apart from text. He stated that Panoli’s bail petition was rejected by the magistrate of the lower court and was remanded to judicial custody. — With inputs from PTI
