Latest news with #Panoli
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- General
- Hindustan Times
Calcutta high court denies interim bail to influencer Sharmishta Panoli
Kolkata: The Calcutta high court on Tuesday refused to grant ad-interim bail to social media influencer Sharmishta Panoli who was arrested by the Kolkata Police on May 30 for her alleged controversial comments on social media. The bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, however, directed the state to ensure that no further FIRs are registered against Panoli for the same set of allegations. 'The social media post has admittedly hurt the sentiments of a section of citizens. We have freedom of speech and expression. That doesn't mean you will go on hurting the sentiments of others. Our nation is full of diversity. People from several communities and caste, and speaking different languages coexist. So, while making such submissions, we have to be cautious,' the court said. Advocate VP Singh, Panoli's counsel, moved the Calcutta high court seeking ad-interim bail for the 19-year-old law student. Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, who was representing the state, however, opposed the bail. The court witnessed a high-pitched argument between the two counsels. 'The May 15 FIR says that she made some blasphemous comments against a community. What is that? Where is that content? The FIR doesn't disclose a cognizable offence, which the police have registered,' Singh told the court. He also said that Panoli's family was receiving threats every day after the social media post and even approached police on three consecutive days seeking protection. It wasn't provided. On May 19, a crowd gathered outside Panoli's residence threatening the family. That was when the family decided to move to Gurugram. Police had earlier stated that all attempts were made to serve notice, but she was found absconding on every occasion. Consequently, a warrant of arrest was issued by the competent court, following which she was apprehended lawfully from Gurugram. 'She had posted a video hurting the religious faith. The FIR itself discloses a cognizable offence. Warrant was issued by the appropriate magistrate after notice was served. Their flat was under lock and key. She was arrested and produced before a magistrate. Her bail petition was rejected by the magistrate and she was sent to custody,' Banerjee told the court. The court was told Panoli was suffering from attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and kidney related ailments. At least four cases have been registered against her. The bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee directed police to produce the case diary and the CD (content of the video posted by the accused on social media) on June 5 during the next hearing. 'The Garden Reach case shall be treated as the principal case against her. Proceedings on the remaining cases will be stayed. The state will ensure that no further FIRs are registered on the same set of allegations,' the bench stated. Even as Singh sought an immediate interim bail, the court fixed the next hearing for Thursday saying: 'Heaven will not fall'.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- General
- Business Standard
Calcutta HC refuses bail to Panoli for controversial remarks amid tensions
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim bail to social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli, who is accused of making controversial remarks against a community in the context of Operation Sindoor—coordinated missile strikes conducted by the Indian armed forces. According to a LiveLaw report, Panoli challenged a remand order issued by a trial court, which had placed her in judicial custody for 14 days. Court stresses caution in diverse society While denying bail, the court listed the matter before the next vacation bench and stated, 'This video was made on social media, it was heard, this incident has led to a section of people's sentiment being hurt. Look, we have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you will go on to hurt others. Our country is diverse, with people from different castes, creeds, religions, etc. We must be cautious by saying this. So, day after tomorrow. Heavens will not fall.' Panoli faces legal action for blasphemous content Panoli, a law student at Symbiosis Law School, allegedly made blasphemous remarks against Prophet Mohammad on her social media accounts. After facing backlash for the offensive video, she deleted it and issued a public apology. Despite this, she was arrested in Gurugram by Kolkata Police. Defence argues arrest violated due process under BNSS Her counsel argued that the arrest was illegal, stating the offences listed in the FIR were non-cognisable. The counsel also contended that Panoli had not been served a notice prior to arrest, which is required under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The state counsel responded that a notice had been issued but could not be served because Panoli had fled with her family. Next hearing set for June 5; case diary requested The High Court directed the West Bengal government to produce the case diary related to Panoli's arrest at the next hearing, scheduled for 5 June. Operation Sindoor: military response to Pahalgam attack On 7 May, the Indian armed forces launched coordinated missile strikes on terrorist infrastructure at nine locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The strikes were in retaliation for the 22 April terror attack in Pahalgam.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- General
- Indian Express
Calcutta HC denies bail for Sharmistha Panoli; orders police to produce case diary
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Parth Sarathi Chatterjee on Tuesday refused to grant interim bail to 22-year-old law student Sharmistha Panoli. After Operation Sindoor, Panoli had allegedly posted an offensive video 'targeting individuals based on their identity'. After facing backlash, she deleted the video and issued an apology. A student at Symbiosis Law School in Pune with nearly 2 lakh followers across social media platforms, Paloni was arrested in Gurugram on May 30. A Kolkata court subsequently remanded her to 14 days of judicial custody. On Tuesday, the Calcutta High Court directed that a May 15 complaint filed at Garden Reach police station by Wajahat Khan be treated as the principal case, and all other FIRs based on similar grounds be stayed. The State has been ordered to produce the case diary and all collected materials before the court on June 5. During the hearing, Justice Chatterjee remarked: 'A group of people in our country got hurt, leading to three or four cases. A section of the country is aggrieved. We have freedom of speech and expression, but that doesn't mean one can go on hurting others. This is a country of diversity, so one needs to be cautious before making such submissions.' The next hearing is scheduled on Thursday. Panoli's counsel argued in court that 'interim relief should be granted as Sharmistha and her family have cooperated with police, and she is unwell. The arrest is illegal.' The counsel said, 'Whatever inquiry is required, the family and the girl are ready to cooperate. We don't even know under which case the FIR in Kolkata was filed. After the post, members of that community threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and outraged her modesty. She filed two complaints with the Kolkata cyber cell, but no action has been taken.' Meanwhile, the State's counsel submitted, 'Notices were served to the girl, but there was no response, which led to the issuance of an arrest warrant.' The High Court said, 'We are a country of remarkable diversity, with people from different cultures. One must be cautious before making any comments. The State should be allowed to present its case. The Court is inclined to review the materials collected by the State so far. The jail authorities must ensure that basic amenities are provided to her.' State counsel Arko Kumar Nag told The Indian Express, '… The lower court had already refused bail. There was no (earlier) direction to produce the case diary… since this matter was served to us today, we will follow the court's orders.'
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- General
- New Indian Express
‘Free speech doesn't mean hurting sentiments': Calcutta HC denies interim bail to influencer Sharmistha Panoli
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 additional inputs from PTI)
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- General
- The Hindu
Calcutta HC directs state to produce case diary in Panoli arrest, posts bail prayer hearing on June 5
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday directed the West Bengal government to produce the case diary in connection with the arrest of law student Sharmistha Panoli 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 Ms. Panoli was arrested will be investigated, while proceedings in all other FIRs in this regard will remain stayed till further orders. The court said that the State will ensure that no further case will be registered on the alleged action of Ms. Panoli. The court directed the State to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing on June 5. Justice Mukherjee observed that one must be careful in making comments in public in a diverse country like India. 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 Ms. 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. Ms. 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 Ms. 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 Ms. Panoli's bail petition was rejected by the magistrate of the lower court and was remanded to judicial custody.
