S. R. SINGH, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS application for bail arises out of Case Crime No. 396 of 1996 under Section 8/20/23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (in short the Act), police station Dumariaganj, district Sidharthriagar, According to the prosecution case the applicant was found in possession of 6 kg of ganja for which he could not produce any licence. ( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. ( 3 ) ARGUMENT advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the maximum punishment for the offence of contravention of the Act in relation to ganja would be five years and, therefore the embargo placed on the power of the court to grant bail under Section 37 of the Act would not be attracted. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon Full Bench decision of Patna High Court in Kamlesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and a single Judge decision of Karnataka High Court in A. V. Dharma Singh and others v. State of Karnataka. Learned Additional Government Advocate refuted the submission and urged that having regard to the quantity of the contraband seized from his possession, the applicant is not entitled to bail. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the embargo placed on the power of the court to grant bail by Section 37 (l) (b) (ii) of the Act would come into play only in case of an offence punishable under the Act for a term of imprisonment of five years or more. Section 20 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that where the possession of contraband is found in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act in relation to ganja, the accused shall be punished 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. The expression imprisonment for a term, which may extend to five years, does not mean Imprisonment of five years within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Act. In my opinion the bar of Section 37 would not apply to a case where the offence is punishable under the Act with imprisonment, which may extend to five years. In my opinion the bar of Section 37 would not apply to a case where the offence is punishable under the Act with imprisonment, which may extend to five years. In other words if the maximum sentence which could be imposed for an offence under the Act is not less than five years then the embargo placed on the power of the Court to grant bail by Section 37 of the Act would apply. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by Patna High Court and Karnataka High Court in the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant. Bail in the instant case will have to be considered having regard to the provisions contained in Section 437/439. Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and the delay that takes place in the trial. I am inclined to admit the applicant to bail. Accordingly, let the applicant Sati Prasad Verma be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 396 of 1996 under Section 8/20/23, of the N. D. P. S. Act, police station Dumariaganj, district Sidharthnagar on his executing personal bond of Rs. 20. 000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidharthnagar. Application allowed. .