On Tuesday, the Calcutta High Court rejected the request for interim bail from Instagram content creator Sharmistha Panoli, emphasizing that freedom of expression does not grant individuals the right to harm others. Panoli, a law student and Instagram influencer, found herself at the center of controversy following her allegedly inflammatory remarks against a community in the context of 'Operation Sindoor'. After an FIR was filed against her last week, she was apprehended by Kolkata police.

During the court proceedings, Panoli's attorney contended that her arrest was unlawful, arguing that the charges mentioned in the FIR were non-cognizable and that she had not received prior notice, which is mandated under the new BNSS laws.

Sharmistha Panoli shared a video on Instagram and X (formerly Twitter) related to 'Operation Sindoor', in which she allegedly made derogatory comments about Prophet Muhammad. Following public backlash, she deleted the content and issued a public apology on X. However, after an FIR was lodged against her on May 15, 2025, she was arrested in Gurugram. Two days later, on May 17, Kolkata police issued an arrest warrant. The video went viral, leading to the hashtag #ArrestSharmishta trending on X. Social media users flooded the comments section of her Instagram post, prompting her to remove the video and apologize publicly. After her arrest, Panoli was presented in Alipore Court in Kolkata, where she was remanded to 14 days of judicial custody.

According to police sources, the FIR against Panoli includes charges under Section 196(1)(a) for promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, or community; Section 299 for deliberately and maliciously intending to hurt religious sentiments; Section 352 for intentionally insulting to provoke a breach of peace; and Section 353(1)(c) for statements that incite public mischief.

As reported, Panoli's legal team argued that her arrest was illegal, claiming the charges were based on non-cognizable offenses and that she had not received prior notice, which is a procedural requirement under the BNSS. However, the state countered that attempts were made to serve notice, but Panoli and her family allegedly moved to Gurugram. After her arrest, Kolkata police presented her before a magistrate, who granted a three-day police remand before transferring her to Kolkata. The court noted that the lower court had already dismissed her regular bail application. With no immediate relief, Panoli will remain in custody as the case is set to be heard by the vacation bench later this week.