JUDGMENT : Heard through video conferencing. 1. This is first application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/Ss. 120-B, 109, 201, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & Sec. 3 & 4 of M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937, based on registration of FIR 138/13 dated 19/4/2013 by Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior (M.P.). 3. Petitioner apprehends arrest in respect of offence of cheating and forgery arising out of allegation that petitioner has appeared as solver in place of co-accused candidate Pankaj Singh Tomar in PMT Examination 2009. 4. It is submitted that petitioner was summoned by CBI for first time in 2017 when he appeared and continues to appear as and when CBI summoned him for giving his statement and as well as his signature and handwriting sample. It is stated that petitioner is presently working as Medical Officer at Naubatpur Patna (Bihar) and he is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions as imposed by this court. 5. Per contra, learned ASGI for respondent CBI objects to bail application and submits that in such nature of offence bail should not be granted. 5.1. To buttress his submission, learned ASGI has placed reliance on the order dated 21/10/2020 in M.Cr.C. No. 35575/2020 [Pritesh Singh Vs. Union of India through C.B.I.] in which coordinate bench of this court at the principal seat at Jabalpur while considering bail application of accused alleged with offence similar to the one alleged herein held that an order of coordinate bench of granting bail to co-accused cannot be binding especially when said order of grant of bail does not contain reasons and reflect that relevant consideration for grant of bail have not been taken into account while granting bail. 5.2. The decision of Apex court in the case of Mauji Ram v. the State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 17 has also been relied upon by the prosecution to contend that an order of bail without reasons as regards relevant factors which need to be considered while deciding bail petition renders the order of bail vulnerable and denuded of precedential value. 5.3. 5.3. There can be no dispute as regards ratio laid down by the aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned ASGI but the same are of no avail to prosecution since this court is assigning enough cogent reasons infra to save this order from being sacrificed at the alter of the aforesaid verdicts. 5.4. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusing the record including reply filed by CBI the fact which comes out loud and clear is that CBI does not deny that petitioner has cooperated in investigation which has culminated in filing of charge-sheet on 5/12/2020 and also that there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. 6. As regards gravity of offence, it is seen that though allegation relates to offence which is against society at large, but said factor of gravity of offence is diluted by the fact of petitioner having cooperated in investigation. More so, material on record does not reveal possibility of petitioner fleeing from justice. 7. In view of above this court deems it appropriate to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to petitioner. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this court deems it appropriate to allow this application u/S. 438 of Cr.P.C. in the following terms. 9. 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 of the like amount [out of which one should be local surety, since petitioner is a resident of Bihar] to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. 10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions:- 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 himself 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 he is accused; 5. The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; 6. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he 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; A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information. C.C. as per rules.