NEELAM BABURAO BALLAversusUNION OF INDIA

          Digitally
          signed by
          WAKLE
WAKLE     MANOJ        MANOJ                                              916-BA-1502-2026.DOC
MANOJ     JANARDHAN
JANARDHAN Date:
          2026.08.21
          18:38:55
          +0530

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1502 OF 2026
                       Neelam Baburao Balla                                …Applicant
                            V/s.
                       Union of India & Anr.                               …Respondents


                       Adv. Ayaz Khan a/w Adv. Zehra Charania & Adv. Mallika Sharma,
                       for the Applicant.
                       Ms. Ruju R. Thakker, SPP a/w Mr. Priyanshu Doshi, for the
                       Respondent No.1- UOI.
                       Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent No.2-State.


                                                 CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                                                 DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2026
                       P.C. :-

                       1.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                       2.      Ms. Thakker, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 tendered
                       Affidavit-in-Reply on behalf of Respondent No.1-UOI. It is taken
                       on record.

                       3.      The Applicant seeks her release on bail under Section 483 of
                       the BNSS 2023, in Special Case No.320 of 2026, pending on the
                       file of Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Sessions Court Gr. Bombay. Said
                       case arising out of File No.SD/INT/AIU/527/2025-AP ‘B’,
                       registered with Air Intelligence Unit (AIU), CSMI Airport,
                       Terminal-II, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections
                       20(b)(ii)(B), 21(b), 23(b), 28, 29, 30, 35 and 54 r/w 8(c) of the
                       Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short
                       “NDPS Act”).

                       4.      As alleged, on 17th December 2025, when she arrived at
                       CSMI Airport, Mumbai from Bangkok, she was found in
                                                     Page 1 of 9
MANOJ                                               916-BA-1502-2026.DOC



possession containing 13.324 kg of hydroponic ganja which she
had carried from abroad in her baggage. Accordingly, the aforesaid
crime was registered and Applicant came to be arrested.
Therefore, the trial Court refused to release the Applicant on bail.

5.      Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
the quantity of the alleged ganja recovered is much less than the
commercial quantity, i.e. 20 kg, as specified under the relevant
Schedule. The NDPS Act does not prescribe any distinction based
on the ad-valorem or market value of the alleged hydroponic ganja
and ordinary ganja. The charge-sheet was filed on 13.02.2026.
However, till date, the CA report of the alleged contraband ganja is
not produced before the trial Court. Therefore, there is no prima
facie case against the Applicant of the alleged offence. He
submitted that since the Report of C.A. is not filed, the Applicant
is entitled for default bail even before this Court as held in
Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State Of Assam, reported in 2018 (1)
SCC (Cri) 401.

        It is submits that since the alleged quantity of the
contraband substance is intermediate quantity, therefore, rigours
of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable in this case. It is
further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents
registered against the Applicant and that the charge-sheet has
already been filed in the matter and no further interrogation of the
applicant is required as the narcotic substance has already been
recovered. Moreover, it is submitted that the Applicant is a
woman. She is ready to abide by the conditions, if any, imposed by
the Court while granting her bail. To support the submissions, Mr.
Khan has cited following citations:
Bablu Singh v. State of MP          Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
                                    631/2024

                              Page 2 of 9
MANOJ                                                  916-BA-1502-2026.DOC



Raju Miah v. State of WB               Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
                                       5870/2025
Ashish Prakash Walke v. State of Criminal Application [BA] No. 376
Maharashtra                      of 2026 Bombay HC ( Nagpur
                                 Bench)
Jabir Kha v. State of MP               Criminal Appeal No.2088 of 2025
                                       (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal)
                                       No.2933 of 2025)
Jay Anil Sawant      v. State      of Criminal Bail Application      No.
Maharashtra                           3760 of 2024 ( Bom. HC)
Birbal Prasad @ Birbal Prasad Sah Supreme Court 2018(2) SCC (Cri)
@ Birbal Prasad Sao @Birbal Sah 672
v. The state of Bihar
Rajesh v. The state of Haryana         SLP/14037/2024 (Supreme Court)
Rajaram v. The state of Rajasthan      SLP/14693/2024( Supreme Court)
Raju Majumdar v. State of West SLP/13733/2025( Supreme Court)
Bengal
Mahesh Prasad Kusmaya & Anr. SLP/6748/2025( Supreme Court)
v. The state of Madhya Pradesh
Urvex Nevel Vesuna v. State of ΒA/4700/2024( Bom HC)
Maharashtra

6.      Opposing the said submissions vehemently, Ms. Thakker,
the learned SPP submitted that, if the seized contraband substance
was not Ganja, the Applicant would not have carried it to India
from abroad. It is submitted that the recovered narcotic substance
is Hydroponic Weed and the same was smuggled by the Applicant
in a concealed manner. The said contraband substance is
amounting approximately of Rs.13,32,40,000/- in the indigenous
and international market. Relying the Order of High Court of
Rajasthan in Kuldeep Singh v. D.R.I., S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13353/2025, Ms. Thakker
submitted that the intensity of the recovered narcotic substance,
Hydroponic Weed, is much greater than ganja because the content
of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the recovered narcotic
substance is approximately 25% as compared to 2% THC in the
ordinary ganja.     This sole fact indicate that the Applicant

                                 Page 3 of 9
MANOJ                                                 916-BA-1502-2026.DOC



transported the ganja to earn money. Such an act is damaging the
economy of the nation. Additionally Ms. Thakker submitted that
the issue is still pending before the Larger Bench of the Supreme
Court, for consideration as to whether a charge-sheet without the
FSL/Examiner's Report in a NDPS case can be termed as an
‘Incomplete Report’ under Section 173 of C.r.P.C. Therefore,
merely because the C.A. Report is not filed, the default bail or
regular bail is not possible.

7.      I have considered these submissions. There is no dispute
that, till the date, the Report of C.A. is not filed in this case before
the trial Court. In similar circumstances, bail is granted in the case
of Bablu Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (Supra)
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therein, the accused was charged
for possession of 28 kg of Opium. He was in custody for more than
3 years and five months. There was one criminal antecedent of
similar nature against the Applicant.

8.      My attention is also drawn to the Order of this Court Bench
at   Nagpur    in   Ashish      Prakash       Walke    v.   State    of
Maharashtra,(Supra). Therein, the accused was found in
possession of 160 grams. of the contraband substance M.D.
Therefore, rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act were attracted. The
charge-sheet was filed on 21.01.2026, without there being
Chemical Analysis report. It appeared from the record that the
Chemical Analysis report was prepared on 08.12.2025, and it was
forwarded to the Police Station, which was received by the Police
Station on 16.12.2025. However, if the date of filing of charge-
sheet is considered i.e. 21.01.2026, it could be gathered that much
after receipt of the Chemical Analysis report, the charge-sheet
came to be filed, however, for the reasons best known to the


                                Page 4 of 9
MANOJ                                              916-BA-1502-2026.DOC



Investigating Officer, the Chemical Analysis report was not made
part and parcel of the charge-sheet. An explanation was tried to be
put forth by the learned A.P.P. that the investigation in the matter
was carried by the Local Crime Branch, and the Chemical Analysis
report was received by the police station, cannot be accepted. It is
further to be noted that the said Chemical Analysis report was
tendered before the trial Court by moving a letter/communication
dated 13.03.2026 by the Police Inspector, Police Station,
Ramnagar. The Chemical Analysis report was enclosed along with
this letter. Thus, almost after two months from the filing of the
charge-sheet the Chemical Analysis report was sought to be placed
on record.

        Therefore, on behalf of the accused it was contended that
the charge-sheet was filed without Forensic Science Laboratory
Report; that, in order to defeat the right provided under Section
187(3) of the BNSS/Section 167 [2] of the C.r.P.C., charge-sheet
was hurriedly filed, without the Report of C.A. Therefore, without
going into the merits of the matter, the applicant be released on
regular bail.

        Therefore, the issue before the High Court was, whether
application under Section 483 of the BNSS/Section 439 of the
C.r.P.C. would be maintainable seeking bail under Section 187(3)
of the BNSS/Section 167[2] of the C.r.P.C., in the present
circumstances?

8.1     While dealing with and answering that issue, the learned
Single Judge noted that, the issue is pending before the Larger
Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Arbaz and
others v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.)
No(s). 8164-8166/2021 dated 18/07/2024), and after noticing that

                             Page 5 of 9
MANOJ                                                 916-BA-1502-2026.DOC



there are conflicting views of different High Courts, the Supreme
Court has observed as under :-

        “1.    In this batch of cases, the primary issue that
        arises for consideration is as to whether a chargesheet
        without the FSL/Examiner's Report in a NDPS case can
        be termed as an incomplete Report' under Section 173
        Cr.P.C.?”
In the same order, the Supreme Court in Paragraph No.8 has
observed that, “The orders granting interim bail to the petitioners
shall continue to operate until further orders.”


8.2     This Court also considered the judgment of Delhi High
Court in case of Subhash Bahadur @ Upender vs. The State
(NCT      of    Delhi),    BA/No.3141/2020         dated   06.11.2020.
Specifically paragraph nos.19, 20, 25 and 42 therein, which reads :

        “19. According to Ms Chauhan, learned APP, it is not
        sufficient that the petitioner had made an application for
        bail. According to her, it would be necessary for an accused
        to apply for bail specifically mentioning the provisions of
        Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC and any application moved
        under Section 439 of the Cr.PC could not be construed as
        the accused availing of his indefeasible right to default bail.

        20. Thus, the question that falls for the consideration of
        this Court is whether an application for a bail under Section
        439 Cr.PC would be sufficient for a court to construe that
        the accused had availed of his right to be released on bail
        under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC if the
        condition stipulated therein were met.

        25. In Rakesh KumarPaul (supra),the right to apply for
        default bail in terms of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the
        Cr.PC had accrued to the accused (appellant therein) on
        04.01.2017. The chargesheet in that case was filed on
        24.01.2017 and on that date, his right to secure a default
        bail stood extinguished. The petitioner had applied for a

                               Page 6 of 9
MANOJ                                               916-BA-1502-2026.DOC


        regular bail on 11.01.2017 before the Gauhati High Court,
        but he had not made any specific application for default
        bail. The Court noted that in that case, the accused had
        mentioned that the statutory period for filing the charge-
        sheet had expired and he had also argued the issue orally.
        However, the same was not accepted. In the aforesaid
        context, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner had
        made an application for default bail, if not in writing, then
        orally. The Court further observed as under:

              “40. ….. In our opinion, in matters of personal
              liberty, we cannot and should not be too
              technical and must lean in favour of personal
              liberty. Consequently, whether the accused
              makes a written application for “default bail” or
              an oral application for “default bail” is of no
              consequence. The court concerned must deal
              with such an application by considering the
              statutory requirements, namely, whether the
              statutory period for filing a charge-sheet or
              challan has expired, whether the charge-sheet or
              challan has been filed and whether the accused is
              prepared to and does furnish bail.”

        42. As explained by the Supreme Court in a number of
        decisions, the Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC is
        intrinsically linked to the right under Article 21 of the
        Constitution of India that “no person shall be deprived of
        his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
        established by law”. It embodies a safeguard that
        circumscribes the power to detain an accused pending
        investigation. Keeping this principle in mind and the
        consistent view of the Supreme Court that in matters of
        personal liberties, it would not be apposite to curtail the
        same on technicalities, this Court is of this view that the
        petitioner would be entitled to default bail. This is also
        considering the fact that the petitioner had indicated in
        unequivocal terms that he desires to be released on bail and
        he is ready to furnish surety for the same.”



                               Page 7 of 9
MANOJ                                               916-BA-1502-2026.DOC



8.3     In the backdrop, in Ashish Prakash Walke, in paragraph
11, the learned Single Judge observed and held that, “11. Even the
Delhi High Court has clarified that when the question of personal
liberty of an accused/person is concerned, the Court cannot be too
technical and must lean in favour of the personal liberty.”
Therefore, this Court directed to release the accused on bail.

9.      In the wake of above, I am inclined to allow the Application.
However, having regard to observation in Kuldeep Singh
(supra) highlighted by Ms. Thakker that, in the matters of
economic offences Courts have to be of iron hands as such
offences are committed with cool calculation and are deliberated
design to effect and fabricate the whole economy of the country;
that, prosecution in white collar crimes is crucial for maintaining
public trust in the financial system and ensuring accountability
amongst those who manipulate economic regulations for their
personal gains, stringent conditions must be imposed. Hence,
following Order:-

        (i)    Applicant – Neelam Baburao Balla shall be released
        on bail Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Sessions Court Gr.
        Bombay, arising out of File No.SD/INT/AIU/527/2025-AP
        ‘B’, registered with Air Intelligence Unit (AIU), CSMI
        Airport, Terminal-II, Mumbai, on her furnishing P.R. Bond
        in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties in the
        like amount.

        (ii)   The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
        before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
        Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.




                               Page 8 of 9
MANOJ                                                916-BA-1502-2026.DOC



        (iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
        evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
        the prosecution witness to prevent them from deposing
        against him.

        (iv)   The Applicant shall surrender her passport with the
        Office of AIU, CSMI Airport, Terminal-II. The Applicant
        shall not enter within the jurisdiction of Mumbai till the
        conclusion of the trial, except to mark her attendance before
        the trial Court and to face the trial.

        (v)    The Applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
        for which she has been arraigned in this case.

        (vi)   On being released from jail, the Applicant shall
        furnish her contact number and residential address to the
        Investigation Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
        there is any change.

        (vii ) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
        Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
        Application and should not influence the outcome of the
        trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
        the merits of the case.

10.     Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.



                                   (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)




                                  Page 9 of 9