Though the DRI invoked the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Bombay High Court has released a woman accused in a 6 kg cocaine case on interim bail for eight months so that she can care for her critically ill infant, who has been living with her in prison.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has granted interim bail for eight months to Pooja Lovepreet Lal, accused by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) of being caught with 6 kilograms of cocaine, on humanitarian grounds because of the condition of her infant daughter [Pooja Lovepreet Lal v. Union of India].
Justice Milind N. Jadhav passed the order on September 28, 2026 on an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in the DRI Mumbai Zonal Unit case registered for offences under Sections 21(c), 23(c), 28, 29, 30, 35 and 54 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. The allegations are yet to be tested at trial.
Background of the case
The Court recorded that the applicant is a woman with no antecedents, caught with 6 kg of cocaine. After her arrest she was granted interim bail for three months to deliver her child, and on January 9, 2026 she delivered a baby girl prematurely. The medical reports showed a documented neonatal history of respiratory distress and bronchopneumonia requiring prolonged NICU treatment. After three months she surrendered to the prison along with the child, and has been housed in prison with her baby since. The Sessions Court had denied her bail on August 7, 2026, relying on a jail report that proper medical facilities, regular check-ups and nutritious food are provided to mothers and children in prison.
The DRI’s objections
The Special Public Prosecutor for the DRI, Rushikesh Munde, relied on an affidavit-in-reply dated September 16, 2026 and submitted that, given the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, there was no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is not guilty, so her plea on humanitarian grounds should be rejected. He said that the applicant and her infant are referred to hospital every week, that after discharge there is no recent medical history showing a continuous illness, and that she will be well looked after in the jail barracks and hospital. He also submitted that she is part of an international drug syndicate and a trusted member and expert in smuggling, as seen from witness statements.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court said that though a substantial case is otherwise made out which can be gone into on merits, it was inclined to consider bail on humanitarian grounds. The applicant’s indictment rests on statements by witnesses and other accused about her earlier involvement, but she has no antecedents, which prima facie satisfies one of the rigours of Section 37. It noted that the infant has had a lower respiratory tract infection requiring medication and nebulisation, and was admitted to hospital from July 2026 with breathlessness, fever and acute respiratory symptoms, and that the applicant herself needs an extra medical diet. The Court observed of the medical reports:
“…by any human consideration needs to be protected rather provided with proper medical care.”
The Court said the concern about re-offending, when she must care for an infant, falls within the welfare and development needs of children living with incarcerated mothers, as the Supreme Court considered in R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. It cautioned that the State must provide care within prison and that this does not create an absolute right of the mother to bail in derogation of the statutory bar of Section 37, so each case depends on its own facts. It held that, since the health of the infant is critical, it would be more appropriate for her to be brought up at home with proper hospital care than in jail, where she must repeatedly be taken for check-ups, and that the prosecution’s anxieties can be met with stringent conditions. The jail report relied on by the Sessions Court did not apply directly, given the precarious condition of the eight-month-old girl.
Conditions
The applicant is to be released immediately for eight months on a personal recognisance bond of Rs 15,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount. She must report to the investigating officer once a month on the first Monday between 10 am and noon, cooperate in the trial and attend every date, not leave Maharashtra without the trial court’s permission, not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, keep the officer informed of her address and mobile number, and surrender after the eight months. Any breach entails cancellation of bail.
The Court clarified that its observations are limited to interim bail and are not findings on merits, and that the trial is to be decided on the evidence. It appreciated the assistance of the legal-aid counsel, Gaurav Sharma, whose fees are to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority under the rules.
Case Title: Pooja Lovepreet Lal v. Union of India
Case Number: Bail Application No. 3454 of 2026
Bench: Justice Milind N. Jadhav, Bombay High Court
Date of Order: September 28, 2026
Appearance: Advocate Gaurav Sharma, appointed through legal aid, for the applicant; SPP Rushikesh Munde with Advocate Shatabdi Netke for the Union of India (DRI); APP Rajeshree V. Newton for the State