“State Must Be Afforded A Fair Opportunity”: Calcutta High Court While Refusing Interim Bail To Sharmistha Panoli, Stays Parallel FIRs
The Court said the State must be given a fair chance to produce relevant records before deciding on the petitioner’s plea for bail and quashing of FIRs.
The Calcutta High Court, yesterday, refused to grant interim bail to Sharmistha Panoli, who was arrested for allegedly making communal remarks on social media during the post 'Operation Sindoor' period, in response to comments made by a Pakistani national. The Court observed that the State should be allowed an opportunity to produce relevant records and address the issues raised in the petition.
A Single Bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee observed, “ Before the Court, no materials have been produced to show the exact comments made by the student, nor have any documents been submitted to indicate whether a notice under Section 35(b) of the BNSS was issued in favour of the petitioner. However, as noted earlier, the State has produced a document titled “Intimation of Grounds of Arrest” and contends that the grounds of arrest were disclosed to the petitioner in compliance with the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution…Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the State should be afforded an opportunity to produce the relevant documents and address the issues raised by the petitioner .”
The Bench further held, “Admittedly, in a country like ours, people of different faiths, communities, and linguistic backgrounds coexist. Therefore, one should exercise caution when making any comments in the media or before the public.”
Senior Advocate D. P. Singh appeared for Panoli, while Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay represented the State.
Brief Facts
Sharmistha Panoli, a 22-year-old law student, was arrested on May 31, 2025, from Gurugram, Haryana, and brought to Kolkata on transit remand, under Sections 196(1)(a), 299, 352, and 353(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was alleged that she made certain remarks on social media during the post 'Operation Sindoor' period, in response to comments made by a Pakistani national. These remarks led to the institution of four criminal cases in the State of West Bengal.
The FIR was filed based on a complaint by Wazahat Khan, General Secretary of the Rashidi Foundation, alleging that Panoli made blasphemous remarks against the Prophet of Islam, disturbing communal harmony.
Panoli filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking quashing of all FIRs, alleging illegal arrest, non-service of notice under Section 35(b) of the BNSS, and violation of Article 22 of the Constitution. She also sought interim bail and consolidation of FIRs based on the same cause of action.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that although the State produced an “Intimation of Grounds of Arrest” under Section 47 of the BNSS, it had not yet placed on record any documents establishing that notice under Section 35(b) had been served. The Court observed, “Before the Court, no materials have been produced to show the exact comments made by the student, nor have any documents been submitted to indicate whether a notice under Section 35(b) of the BNSS was issued in favour of the petitioner.”
The Bench noted the existence of four FIRs arising from the same set of allegations and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2o001), Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010), and Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India (2025), to observe that the test of “sameness” was applicable.
Accordingly, the Court held, “Garden Reach Police Station Case No. 136 of 2025 shall be treated as the principal case, and all other cases registered on the identical set of allegations and/or cause of action shall remain stayed until the disposal of this writ petition.”
The Court further directed, “The State is also directed to ensure that no further case and/or FIR is registered arising out of the same cause of action and/or similar set of allegations against the petitioner.”
Addressing submissions regarding jail conditions, the Court recorded the State’s assurance that all facilities available to other inmates in custody would also be provided to the Panoli, in accordance with the law.
While refusing to grant interim bail at this stage, the Court listed the matter before the next Vacation Bench on June 5, 2025.
Cause Title: Shamishta Panoli @ Sharmishta Panoli Raj v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P.A. 12361 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates D.P. Singh, Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Rajdeep Mazumder; Advocates Kabir Shankar Bose, Brijesh Jha, Vikash Singh, Satadru Lahiri, Mannu Mishra, Kanchan Jaju, Sudarshan Kumar Agarwal, Vanshika Lamba, Ditsha Dhar, Ujwal Choudhary, Tejswi Jatt, Soumya Sarkar
Respondent/State: Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay; Advocates Swapan Banerjee, Saibal Bapuli, Madhusudan Sur, Sunita Shaw, D.N. Banerjee, Arka Kumar Nag, Soumen Chatterjee
