ORDER P.K. Mohanty, J. - This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the petitioner who is an accused in Special Case No. 38 of 1997 pending before the Special Judge, Dhenkanal-Angul, arising out of Angul P.S. Case No. 61 of 1997 under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "N.D.P.S. Act"). 2. Mr. Debasis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that this being a case under Section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act, Section 37 thereof is no bar for grant of bail. It is further submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no materials against the petitioner to connect him in the alleged offence and as such, he should be released on bail on any terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit. Sri Panda further submits that Section 37(1)(b) is applicable only in cases, where a person is accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment for five years or more under the Act and on a reading of Section 37(1)(b), the minimum term of imprisonment has to be five years to attract the provision whereas the maximum punishment in case of an offence under Section 20(b)(i), the rigorous imprisonment may extend to five years, which otherwise means, may be less than five years. He has placed reliance on a division bench decision of Patna High Court in Kamlesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar, reported in 1994(3) Crimes 671 and partially on a decision of the Apex Court in Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India and others (1997)13 OCR(SC)50; 1997 SCC. (Cri) 514 in support of his contention. 3. The Division Bench of Patna High Court in Kamalesh Kumar and others (supra), while considering a similar contention have taken a view that the bar operates only in cases where the minimum sentence is five years and since sentence under Section 20(b)(i) can be less than five years, the bar of Section 37(1)(6) is not attracted. Sri Panda has further invited my attention to a case. Braj Kishore Thakur (supra) to contend that the above view of the Patna High Court has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but however, the decision referred to is in a different contest. Sri Panda has further invited my attention to a case. Braj Kishore Thakur (supra) to contend that the above view of the Patna High Court has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but however, the decision referred to is in a different contest. What the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered, was, whether the adverse remark recorded against the District and Sessions Judge by a learned single Judge of the Court was at all warranted, the subordinate Court having granted bail to the accused-opp. parties, alleged to have been involved in an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Kamalesh Kumar and others (supra), that an accused charges with an offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act, the bar under Section 37(i)(b) is not attracted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that the correctness of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court was not being considered, but in view of the decisions of the Division Bench, subordinate Courts in the State of Bihar were bound by the said legal position in Kamalesh Kumar's case. The Apex Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and others. (1991) 4 OCR (SC) 126 AIR 1991 SC 558 however have considered in details the power of the High Courts under Section 439, Cr. P.C. to grant bail in an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act and their Lordships have held that such power is circumscribed by the limitations under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act may be quoted hereunder for reference- "37, Offences to be cognizable and non bailable (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section(1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." Thus on a plain reading of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 37, it is manifestly clear that no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more (Emphasis Supplied) under the Act shall be released on bail or on his own bonds unless the conditions laid in Sub-section (b) are complied with. 4. The further question that arises for consideration is as to what the language "the term of imprisonment for five years or more" used in the provision implies. On a plain reading, the intent and purport of the language cannot but be nothing other than a minimum term of five years, which may also be more. The use of "or more" after "a term of five years" signifies that the term of either five years or more or in other words, where the term of punishment is minimum of five years or not less than five years, the bar under the provision is applicable and not otherwise. Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act may be profitably quoted hereunder: "20. Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act may be profitably quoted hereunder: "20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis:- Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any Rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, (a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable:- (i) where such contravention relates to ganja or the cultivation of cannabis plant, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees; (ii) Where such contravention relates to cannabis other than ganja, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees and which may extend to two lakh rupees; Provided that the Court may for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees"." Thus, for an offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act, the punishment prescribed is for a term which may extend to five years and necessarily not a minimum of five years, whereas under Section 20(b) (ii), the punishment is for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years. What is contemplated under Section 20(b)(i) is a punishment which may extend to five years, meaning thereby like any other similarly worded provision under the Penal Code that the punishment may be for any number of years upto a maximum limit of five years. The restriction imposed under Section 37(l)(b) is a punishment for a term of five or more years and therefore, in case of offence under Section 20(b)(i ) such restriction, as contemplated under Section 37(1) is not attracted. 5. In the case referred to earlier in Kamalesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar decided by a Division Bench of Patna High Court, the Division Bench has taken the view while interpreting Section 20{b)(i) and Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, that the limitation of power to grant bail by Section 37(1)(b) is applicable only in offence punishable for a term of five years or more imprisonment and therefore the bar operates only, if the minimum sentence is five years. The aforesaid decision also has taken note of the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of A.V. Dharma Singh v. State of Karnataka reported in 1993 Cr. Law Journal 94, in which the Karnataka High Court has taken the view that the expression punishable for a time of imprisonment for five years or more may not be interpreted to mean punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than five years but it can be more. A reference may also be made to the decision of Madras High Court in Sundarsan v. State reported in 1993 Criminal Law Journal 3342, wherein the Madras High Court has taken the view that the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act comes within the purview of Section 37. A reference may be made to the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Ganapati Mohanty (1993)6 OCR 117 : 75(1993) C.L.T. 337, where this Court has taken somewhat a similar view while dealing with a case under Section 482 Cr. P. suo motu where the petitioner was released on bail by the learned District Judge applying Section 27 of the Act. Even though the point has not been directly answered but it has been observed at Para 5 thereof- "The reason for the aforesaid view is that Section 27 is really not punishing section. The same is, in so far as illegal possession of the articles in question is concerned, Section 20(b) which visualises punishment, if the case were to attract sub-clause(i), upto five years imprisonment (and if Sub-clause(ii), upto 20 years), which would undoubtedly bring into operation Section 37(1)(b), because that applies to cases of offences punishable with a term of imprisonment of five years or more..." However, taking note of the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kisanlal and others (supra) the Court held that since the decision of(he learned Sessions Judge granting bail was passed on 20.8.92 without bearing in mind the requirement of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act it would be unfair to the prosecution. 6. In Bimbadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 6 OCR 187: 75 (1993) C.L.T. 719 the Division Bench of this Court has also taken note of Ganapati Mohanty's case referred to earlier. 6. In Bimbadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 6 OCR 187: 75 (1993) C.L.T. 719 the Division Bench of this Court has also taken note of Ganapati Mohanty's case referred to earlier. The Division Bench has also taken note of the decision in Soodha Somana and another v. State (1991) 4 O.C.R. 437 that the provision of Section 37(l)(b) also applies to offences which are punishable with imprisonment for more that 5 years. This Court in Soodha Somana and another v. State (1991)4 O.C.R. 437 relied on (1990)3 O.C.R. 462 (State v. Surendranath has consistently taken the view that in view of the mandate contained in Section 37 bail is not to be granted unless the concerned Court is satisfied that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence in case it carries custodial sentence of 5 years or more. However, the importance of the language 5 years or more in the context has expressly not been answered. 7. I am, therefore, of the considered view that Section 37(1)(b) is applicable only in case the offence is punishable with minimum sentence of 5 years and therefore for a alleged offence under Section 20(b)(i) the bar under Section 37(1)(b) is not attracted. 8. Having held as above now let me consider the application of the petitioner for bail on its own merit. It is to be noted that prima facie, there are materials to suggest that when the raiding party on information, reached the stationery shop of the petitioner, they found that the petitioner was sitting in his shop and no customer was present. On observing the formality when search was conducted, some ganja kept in a polythene bag in another polythene bag 38 pudias of ganja were recovered from the backside of the sitting place of the petitioner Gunanidhi Chand. On weighment, it was found that 45 grams of ganja in first polythene bag and 38 pudias of ganja after removal of the papers measured 55 grams. Some witnesses examined under Section 161, Cr. P.C. have corroborated the prosecution case. The investigation is in progress. At this stage, I am not inclined to discuss in details and its merit or otherwise on the evidence available on record, it may be prejudice either of the parties. The offence alleged is a social crime in its increase and have become a social malady. P.C. have corroborated the prosecution case. The investigation is in progress. At this stage, I am not inclined to discuss in details and its merit or otherwise on the evidence available on record, it may be prejudice either of the parties. The offence alleged is a social crime in its increase and have become a social malady. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. 9. Thus, the bail application is rejected. 10. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. Final Result : Disposed Of