“Arrest Was Mechanical”: Calcutta High Court Observes While Granting Bail To Sharmistha Panoli; Directs Police Protection In Light Of Threats And Obscene Messages
The Court said that Panoli was arrested under a mechanically issued warrant and without compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22 and Section 47 of the BNSS.
The Calcutta High Court, while granting interim bail to law student Sharmistha Panoli has observed that her arrest was based on a mechanically issued warrant and without compliance with the mandatory safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court further directed the State to provide police protection to Panoli, given her complaint alleging threats and sexually explicit abuse received after her online post. The Court noted that photographs of crowd gatherings in the case diary supported her apprehension.
A Single Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed, “The warrant of arrest which has been issued appears to be issued in a mechanical manner… The order and consequential warrant of arrest, in my view does not satisfy the requirement of satisfaction of the Magistrate to authorize detention especially when the offence punishable was by imprisonment which may extend only up to three years and one of the Section charged was bailable and non-cognizable.”
The Bench further noted, “Having regard to the complaint of the petitioner dated 15th May 2025 and the submission made by the Learned Advocate General that a case has been registered, I am of the view that the police authorities should afford proper police protection to the petitioner.
Senior Advocate D.P. Singh appeared for Panoli, while Advocate General Kishore Datta represented the State.
Brief Facts
Sharmistha Panoli had filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the registration of FIRs and the consequential investigation. She also prayed for interim bail.
The complaint forming the basis of the FIR, lodged by the Rashidi Foundation, alleged that Panoli made abusive remarks against the Prophet of Islam on X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram, disturbing communal harmony.
The State submitted that several notices under Sections 35(3) and 94 of the BNSS were issued to Panoli, who failed to respond, and due to her non-cooperation, the police sought a warrant of arrest, which was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. She was arrested from Gurugram on May 30, 2025, and produced before the CJM.
The State contended that Panoli was in custody for a short period and that the arrest was lawful, justified, and procedurally sound.
The Senior Advocate appearing for Panoli submitted that she is a fourth-year student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune. It was stated that she received sexually explicit emails and threats following the online circulation of her post and had lodged police complaints on May 15 and 17 seeking protection. She submitted that she was unaware of the FIR or any notices and had moved to Gurugram for safety.
It was argued on behalf of Panoli that the warrant of arrest was issued mechanically, without judicial satisfaction as required under law, and that the document served as “grounds of arrest” merely stated that a warrant existed, without disclosing any facts or offences.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court held that while no formal challenge was made to the CJM's May 22 order issuing the warrant, the record clearly indicated that it was passed without judicial satisfaction as required, particularly in a case involving non-cognizable or bailable offences.
The Court also examined whether the service of the arrest warrant alone could amount to compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS. The Court noted, “The requirement of informing a person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a mandatory procedure... Non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused.”
The Bench held that the FIR did not contain the actual remarks alleged to have been made by Panoli, and there was nothing on record to show how it disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court also noted that the materials in the case diary confirmed Panoli’s apprehensions of hostility.
Referring to her May 15 complaint and the case diary containing photographs of large crowd gatherings, the Court directed, “The police authorities should afford proper police protection... 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.”
Finding that custodial interrogation was not necessary, the Court directed that Panoli be released on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The conditions imposed included that she must cooperate with the investigation, she must not leave the country without permission from the Court, and that the Investigating Officer must give reasonable notice before summoning her and consider her academic schedule.
It is pertinent to note that the State's request for a stay of the order was refused by the Bench.
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 Majumder; Advocates Kabir Shankar Bose, Brajesh Jha, Vikash Singh, Satadru Lahiri, Mayukh Mukherjee, Mannu Mishra, Arushi Rathode, Kanchan Jaju, Sudarshan Kumar Agarwal, Vanshika Lamba, Rahul Verma, Ditsha Dhar, Tejasuri Jatt, Soumya Sarkar, Sagnika Banerjee, Debanea Das, Swheta Maity
Respondents: Advocate General Kishore Dutta; Advocates Swapan Banerjee, Sumitra Slaeni, Diptendra Narayan Banerjee, Arka Kumar Nag, Soumen Chatterjee
