Judging by the algorithm on the Blowfish Wikipedia article, there is no way for the process to fail with an error. How then does GnuPG know when to tell you your password is correct when decrypting a file, rather than proceeding to decrypt meaningless data?
An important property of a ciphertext is that it has to be indistinguishable from truly random data. This allows the encryption cipher to produce ciphertext that reveals no information about the plaintext (other than size) or the encryption key. In fact, this property even allows encryption algorithms to act as pseudorandom byte generators by simply making them generate a stream of random ciphertext.
In the case of stream ciphers, decryption is the result of XORing each ciphertext byte with its corresponding keystream byte in sequence. If the keystream byte corresponding to the ciphertext byte is correct, the result of the XOR will yield the original plaintext byte. Since ciphertext cannot be made to provide any information regarding the plaintext, it follows that it also cannot be made to reveal whether the XOR of a certain keystream byte yielded a correct plaintext for the byte or not. Otherwise, the cipher would be clearly broken and allow us to basically query it for information regarding the plaintext.
A similar principle applies to block ciphers such as Blowfish, except those ciphers operate on entire blocks of bytes instead of individual bytes, and also employ other operations such as substitution in tandem with XORs, organized in structures such as Feistel networks.
Therefore, when it's important to be able to inform the user whether a decryption operation has succeeded in yielding the expected data, cryptography engineers use Message Authentication Codes. Hash-based MACs allow a candidate plaintext to be compared against an authenticated hash value. If the check passes, then we know that it is the correct plaintext and are then able to notify the user that the decryption function was successful as intended.
Generally, if you want to verify the integrity of encrypted data as it goes through the wire to reach someone, you would generate a MAC for the ciphertext. But if you also want to verify that the decrypted plaintext is correct (as seems to be your case here,) then you would generate another MAC for the plaintext and send it along with the ciphertext.
While hash-based MACs are probably the preferred way to do this, they aren't the only way to verify successful decryption. For example, TrueCrypt will check the first four bytes of the volume header in order to see if decryption is successful. This approach is likely to be more error-prone than HMACs in most applications, however.
Finally, there are block cipher modes of operation (such as Galois Counter Mode) that grant block ciphers such as Blowfish or AES the ability to self-authenticate. This pretty much allows a ciphertext to verify its own integrity without the need for an external check. Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, you may want to investigate both HMACs and Galois Counter Mode and decide which offers the verification properties you're looking for.
As a security measure, the processing time given to crafted encrypted messages and benignly encrypted messages must be the same. So I think in both cases the algorithm does the same, for example checks the MAC and decrypts the message.