JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Perused the case diary. 3. It is revealed that recovery is made by Banwari and the complicity of the accused applicant was disclosed by Banwari, from whom recovery of 2 gm. of smack was made. I have also examined the relevant provision made Under section 30 Cr.P.C. and section 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. 4. In reply to this, the learned public prosecutor invited my attention to section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act. I do not want to dwell upon the intricate question relating to the complicity of the accused applicant at the stage of bail application. 5. Looking into the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am objectively satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for enlarging the accused applicant on bail. I am also of the opinion that there is no likelihood to commit any offence by the accused applicant, if he is enlarged on bail. 6. It is ordered that the applicant Kanhaylal son of Ramgopal, be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of like amount to be satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance before the said court during the pendency of trial against him in this case.Bail granted. *******