Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.) This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to admit the petitioner to bail as he was arrested in connection with Baranagar P. S. Case No. 13 of 2000 registered under Section 20(i) of the N. D. P. S. Act. The prosecution story in brief is that on 27.4.2000 at about 11.30 hours while the petitioner was standing near main gate of B. O. P., Haridashpur on Jessore Road, he was intercepted by Border Security Personnel and, subsequently, on search 2 Kg. of Ganja from his rickshaw van was recovered which was in his possession. Therefore, a case under Section 20(i) of the N. D. P. S. Act was registered and he was remanded to judicial custody. Since then he made several attempts to secure an order of release from the Court on bail but all his attempts were not fructified.
(2.) There is no offence under this Act, which carries punishment for a term of imprisonment for five years. Therefore, the expression 'five years or more' used in Section 37(i) (b) of the Act cannot have any other interpretation than that the offence should be punishable with minimum sentence of five years. In some contingency the provisions of the contravention of this Act relating to Ganja, the accused can be punished with rigorous imprisonment for five years. In such case, Section 37(i) (b) shall attract. The word punishable 'according to BLACK DICTIONARY' means deserving or capable or liable to punishment. Therefore, the word 'punishable' has clearly signified to the minimum punishment awardable in a given case to a person found guilty of an offence. In such situation, we cannot but hold that the prayer for bail application comes within the embargo of under Section 37(i) (b) of the N. D. P. S. Act.
(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that even assuming that the accused was arrested under Section 20(i) (b), then also, the punishment being less than five years. Therefore, the embargo placed under Section 37 of the act is not applicable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1999 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter page 246 in the case of Mongol Singh.;