The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has allowed the bail application filed by Ashish Prakash Walke and directed his release on regular bail in connection with Crime No.853/2025 registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Chandrapur, for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Justice M.M. Nerlikar, in an oral order dated 20 April 2026 in Criminal Application (BA) No.376 of 2026, held that an application filed under the regular bail provisions can be treated as one seeking default bail if the necessary grounds are pleaded, and technicalities cannot be allowed to defeat the right to personal liberty.
The applicant was arrested after a white Swift car was intercepted on 27 October 2025 on the basis of secret information. On search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and panch witnesses, two plastic packets containing 160 grams of white-coloured powder (Mephedrone/MD) were recovered. The FIR was lodged by a Crime Branch official. The charge-sheet was filed on 21 January 2026 without the Chemical Analysis / FSL report. The report, which was prepared on 08 December 2025 and received by the police station on 16 December 2025, was later tendered across the bar on 13 March 2026 without filing a supplementary charge-sheet.
The applicant contended that the charge-sheet was hurriedly filed without the FSL report to defeat his indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC / Section 187(3) BNSS. He relied upon the Supreme Court’s order in Jabir Kha v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.2088 of 2025) and submitted that the issue regarding whether a charge-sheet filed without the FSL report in an NDPS case can be treated as an “incomplete report” is pending before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, where interim bail has been granted.
The State opposed the application, submitting that the contraband was of commercial quantity, the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act applies, and an application filed under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS cannot be treated as one claiming default bail.
Justice Nerlikar first addressed the maintainability issue. After considering the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Subhash Bahadur @ Upender v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Bail Application No.3141/2020), this Court in Ranjeet Manohar Machrekar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No.509/2014), and the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67, the Court held that even if the bail application is filed under regular bail provisions, it is maintainable for claiming default bail provided the grounds are pleaded. The Court observed:
“In matters of personal liberty, we cannot and should not be too technical and must lean in favour of personal liberty.”
The Court noted that the applicant had specifically pleaded in the application that the charge-sheet was incomplete due to the absence of the Chemical Analysis report. It further observed that the Chemical Analysis report was available with the investigating agency well before the filing of the charge-sheet but was not annexed to it. The subsequent tendering of the report without filing a supplementary charge-sheet was described as a “strange procedure”, in line with the Supreme Court’s observations in Jabir Kha (supra).
The Court also took note of the fact that the larger issue is pending before the Supreme Court and interim bail has been granted in similar cases. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the High Court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
The application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, subject to stringent conditions, including not committing similar offences, not tampering with evidence, providing residential address and contact details, and regular attendance before the trial court. It was clarified that breach of any condition would entitle the State to seek cancellation of bail. The observations were made prima facie and were not to influence the trial.
Case Title: Ashish Prakash Walke v. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Application (BA) No.376 of 2026
Date of Order: 20 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice M.M. Nerlikar
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 