JUDGMENT : 1. Heard through video conferencing. 2. This is first application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. 3. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/ss. 120-B, 109, 201, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC., r/w Ss. 3/4 of M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 registered as Crime No. 138/13 at Police Station Jhansi Road District Gwalior. 4. The petitioner who is a woman aged about 36 apprehending her arrest in regard to the offence of cheating and forgery alongwith other peripheral offences with the allegation that petitioner appeared as a solver in PMT Exam 2009. 5. Reply of CBI does not reveal that petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation. Chargesheet in the matter has been filed on 05.12.2020 and investigation is therefore, over qua the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the CBI submits that co-accused Sanjay Bathan has suffered dismissal of his anticipatory bail application MCRC 3109/2021 on 29.01.2021 and therefore, prayer is made that petitioner should also be made to suffer the same fate as the co-accused. 7. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the Investigating Agency that chargesheet in the matter has been filed and therefore custodial interrogation is not required. 8. Dismissal of bail application of co-accused Sanjay Batham may not adversely affect the prospects of petitioner because anticipatory bail application of co-accused which was rejected on 29.01.2021 was his second attempt after rejection of earlier one on merits. More so the said co-accused Sanjay Batham could not demonstrate any new ground in his repeat bail application. In case of petitioner, it is his first attempt and therefore, rejection of bail application of co-accused Sanjay Batham can be of no avail to the petitioner. 9. The principle laid down by Apex Court including the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 1 SCC 694 and subsequent decisions not only emphasize the importance of gravity of offence but also the attribute of accused cooperating in investigation and trial as one of the persuading considerations while exercising jurisdiction u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, petitioner as is evident from reply of CBI has appeared as and when required during investigation. Thus, sending petitioner to custody in the given facts would be akin to punishing her for the offence which is yet to be established thereby violating the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence i.e. "presumption of innocence". 10. Among few important factors to be considered while deciding application for anticipatory bail are gravity of offence and also conduct of accused in cooperating in investigation and the prospects of doing so in future and also in trial. Apex court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra) in somewhat similar situation came to hold :- "89. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. 90. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage. Whether the powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. are subject to limitation of section 437 Cr.P.C." 11. Said judgment has been referred with approval in subsequent decision of Apex Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Another (2016)1 SCC 152 and also in Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and another (2020) 5 SCC 1 but with certain reservations in regard to the aspect of imposition of conditions while granting anticipatory bail. 12. After hearing learned counsel for rival parties and considering the fact that investigation in the matter qua petitioner is over and thus custodial interrogation is not required and that petitioner appears to have participated in the investigation by appearing as and when summoned, this court without entering into merits of the matter lest it may prejudice learned trial judge, deems it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. in the following terms. 13. 13. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) with two solvent sureties (out of which one surety shall be local surety), each of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority. 14. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the petitioner :- 1. The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her; 2. The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The petitioner will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused; 5. The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; 6. The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. 15. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. 16. C.c. as per rules.