The case involving Sharmistha Panoli, a law student and social media influencer, has taken a controversial turn as her father, Prithviraj Panoli, accused the Kolkata Police of spreading false information and misleading the court by declaring her "absconding" despite documented attempts to cooperate with the authorities.
According to Prithviraj, he and Sharmistha personally visited:
-
Lalbazar, Kolkata Police headquarters, on May 15, and
-
Anandapur Police Station on May 17, seeking protection due to serious rape and death threats Sharmistha had been receiving after her now-deleted video triggered controversy and FIRs.
To support his claims, Prithviraj produced visitor slips from Lalbazar dated May 15, clearly showing photos and names of both himself and his daughter, proving their presence at police HQ on the same day the FIR was registered at the Gardenreach Police Station.
Despite this:
-
On May 17, just two days later, Gardenreach Police sought and obtained an arrest warrant, claiming Sharmistha and her family were absconding and had evaded notice under Section 35 of the BNSS.
-
Sharmistha was eventually arrested from Gurugram on May 30, with police claiming her arrest was lawful and that multiple failed attempts were made to serve notice.
Prithviraj strongly refuted the police narrative, stating:
-
No notices were sent via WhatsApp, email, or in person.
-
He and his daughter went to the police stations willingly, not just to cooperate but also to request protection.
-
They fled to Gurugram out of fear, seeing suspicious men lurking near their home and amid growing online threats.
-
From May 20 to 30, Sharmistha was even interning in Gurgaon, and he claims he remained in contact with a Kolkata Police official during this period.
He also alleged:
“The police never came to our flat. You can ask the security guards. If any notice was served, there would be a record.”
Moreover, when Sharmistha was picked up in Gurugram on May 30, no arrest warrant or grounds were shown, he claimed.
Key Contradictions:
| Kolkata Police Claim | Prithviraj Panoli's Counter |
|---|---|
| Sharmistha was absconding | She visited Lalbazar HQ on May 15; evidence provided |
| Notice attempts failed | No notice via WhatsApp, mail, or physical delivery |
| Arrest was lawful | No warrant or grounds shown during arrest |
| Family fled to avoid arrest | They fled fearing threats, not the law |
This unfolding conflict highlights serious questions about procedural transparency, police accountability, and rights of the accused, particularly in high-voltage cases amplified by social media.
The next court hearing in Sharmistha Panoli's case is scheduled for June 5, with her legal team likely to raise these allegations regarding the validity of the arrest and the police’s conduct.
