ORDER : U. C. MAHESHWARI, J. On behalf of the petitioner, this petition is preferred under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 138/2013 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences of sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognised Examinations Act. 2. Petitioner's counsel after taking us through the petition as well as the annexed papers including the rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that the petitioner has been implicated in the matter on the ground that he being a middleman after taking the alleged sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs from one Premlal Ahanke had made arrangement of a solver to appear in the competitive examination on behalf of such Premlal and also managed other affairs to secure seat for such Premal in medical education by breaking the system of competitive examination of PMT conducted by VYAPAM. But on mere perusal of the case diary it is apparent that there is no evidence to show that at any point of time, the petitioner had obtained any money from said Premal and handed over to other alleged persons to secure the seat for Premlal in medical education. She also said that there is no evidence to show that arrangement of the alleged solver was made by the present petitioner. In continuation, she said that some of the accused of the impugned crime have already been extended such benefit of anticipatory bail so on the ground of parity also, the petitioner deserves to be extended such benefit. In addition she argued that the petitioner being Veterinary Doctor is in Government service since long and at present, he is posted at Chhindwara. He is giving his duty regularly in his office and in such premises, the investigating agency has wrongly shown him to be an absconded person. She further said that on extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, he will abide all the terms and conditions which would be imposed by the Court under its discretionary jurisdiction and prayed to allow this petition. 3. She further said that on extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, he will abide all the terms and conditions which would be imposed by the Court under its discretionary jurisdiction and prayed to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, State counsel with the assistance of the case diary argued that as per available evidence collected by the investigating agency in the case diary, there are prima facie circumstances that in consideration of Rs. 2,50 lakhs the petitioner had managed the affairs to secure seat for Premlal Ahanke in the medical course. He also made arrangement of a solver and thereby he had broken the established system to hold the competitive examination of PMT conducted by VYAPAM. It is also apparent from the case diary that the petitioner is absconding since long and in the lack of arrest, his custodial interrogation could not be carried out as the same is required to verify certain facts. He further said that by the alleged offending act, the petitioner had deprived those bona fide and genuine students to get admission in medical course who appeared in the alleged competitive examination of PMT held by VYAPAM on the basis of their own labour and study, but due to the person like the petitioner they could not get success. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Having heard counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the case diary and the papers placed on record along with rejection order of the Sessions Court. On such perusal, we have found sufficient prima facie circumstances against the petitioner showing that he being a middleman involved himself under the alleged criminal conspiracy with the alleged racketeers to secure the admission of Premlal Ahanke in illegal manner in consideration of Rs. 2.50 lakhs in the medical course and thereby the petitioner had not only broken the established system of VYAPAM to hold the competitive examination of PMT, but by such act, he also deprived to those genuine and bona fide students to get admission in medical course at their proper age who appeared in such competitive examination on the basis of their own labour and study. As such, due to such illegal activities of the middlemen and racketeers like the petitioner, such students could not get the admission to make their career in the medical field at their proper age. Even otherwise, in view of the evidence collected by the investigating agency, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the matter which could be carried out only after making his arrest. 5. So far as question of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity is concerned, we are of the considered view that in view of available evidence in the case diary, the cases of the other accused persons who have been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail are squarely distinguishable from the case of the present petitioner. Even otherwise, bail matters are always decided on the basis of collected evidence against the concerning accused. So in such premises, the orders extending anticipatory bail to co-accused are not helping the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we have not found any merit in the matter to allow this petition, hence, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.