New Delhi: Calcutta High Court Thursday granted interim bail to 22-year-old law student and influencer Sharmishta Panoli. The court directed Panoli to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 while instructing the police to provide her with protection if she faces any threats.
Panoli was arrested by Kolkata police from Gurugram, Haryana, last week in connection with an FIR filed at Kolkata’s Garden Reach police station over an Instagram video on Operation Sindoor in which she allegedly made controversial remarks about Prophet Muhammed.
She later deleted the video and issued an apology on 15 May, but the Kolkata Police took her into custody, saying she and her family “absconded,” and attempts to serve notices to appear for questioning were not successful. On Saturday, Sharmishta was produced before the Alipore Court in Kolkata, which remanded her in judicial custody for 14 days.
The arrest had triggered a political fallout with leaders from both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress accusing the West Bengal police and the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) of overreach and stifling freedom of speech.
Before the court directed the state police to ensure her safety if she were to face any potential threats, Advocate General Kishore Datta, representing the state, argued in front of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury that Panoli evaded police and was arrested outside West Bengal; hence, regular bail had not been granted earlier, reported Live Law. The state contended that the appropriate course of action was to apply for regular bail, not to move the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In response, the high court sought details of the FIR from the case diary.
The Advocate General contended that Panoli’s remarks led to public disturbances and also urged that the case be transferred to a regular bench.
At this point, the judge noted that simply because a different judge was hearing the matter did not invalidate prior observations by a coordinated bench.
Challenging the state’s argument, Senior Advocate D.P. Singh, appearing for Panoli, argued that the arrest was improper as no prior notice had been served. He said Panoli had approached the high court instead of seeking regular bail because her fundamental rights were at stake.
Drawing comparisons with the Supreme Court’s grant of interim bail to Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad on 21 May in an FIR lodged by Haryana Police over his social media post on ‘Operation Sindoor’, Singh argued that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence, submitting that “blasphemy is not part of Indian law”.
He also argued that Panoli had deleted the controversial video the very next day and issued an apology. The court took into account that her college details were revealed in the complaint, which allegedly led to threats against her. Considering these factors, the court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary any longer and granted Panoli interim bail.
This is an updated version of the report
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
A sensible decision by the honourable High Court. The courts can decide if there is any substance in the case against Sharmishta. In the meantime, there is no reason why she should be locked up like a common criminal.
The Print editorial team went hammer and tongs at the Modi government for arresting Prof. Mahmudabad. But it chose to remain silent on the unjustifiable action of the Kolkata Police against Ms. Panoli.
The Print even put out an editorial slamming the Supreme Court for it’s adverse remarks targeting Prof. Mahmudabad. Mr. Shekhar Gupta decried the SC observations as an instance of poor judgement.
Yet, neither The Print nor Mr. Gupta has even once defended Ms. Panoli’s freedom of expression. Neither have they condemned and castigated the Mamata Banerjee government for it’s deplorable actions against Ms. Panoli.
This instance has clearly shown us readers where the true sympathies of The Print and it’s founder lie. They will always defend a Muslim but never a Hindu.