ORDER : – This is first application under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 393/2022 registered at Police Station Dabra City, District Gwalior (M. P.) for the offence punishable under sections 394, 34, 120-B, 409, 397, 193 of Indian Penal Code and 11, 13 of MPDVPK Act, and 25, 27 of Arms Act. 3. In brief, case of the prosecution is that on 6-5-2022 at 9 pm complainant/accused Anshul Gupta, resident of House No. 232 Tansen Nagar, along with one Dharmendra lodged a report at police Station, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior, stating that he is working as Senior Branch Manager in Annapurna Finance Company, office of the aforesaid company was situated near Puran Talkies at Dabra. In the afternoon at about 2.30 pm by keeping collection of 3-4 days of the company in a black bag he was going by motorcycle along with Field Credit Officer Dharmendra to deposit the collected money in the Branch of State Bank of India, Bus Stand Dabra. As soon as they reached near G. M. Garden behind them two young persons covering their face came on a motorcycle assaulted them with lathi, due to which, his motorcycle became imbalance and they fell down. One of the boy snatched black colour bag from the hands of Dharmendra and run away. They were between 25-30 years of age. If they will come in front of him he will identify them. How much money was kept in the bag he is having no knowledge and that can be confirmed from cash book ledger. On his report, Crime No. 393/2022 under sections 392/34, sections 11, 13 of the MPDVPK Act was registered by police Station, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior. During investigation of the aforesaid crime it came out that complainant was having in the bag sum of Rs. 6,20,000/- conspired with Dharmendra, Mohit, Badal Jat, Pushpendra and Prashant Sen of the aforesaid crime. Complainant was apprehended. He was interrogated. During interrogation, he has stated that he had lost Rs. 4,80,000/- in the gambling. Due to aforesaid loss he hatched a conspiracy with the aforesaid persons. While he was going on the motorcycle with Mahendra, accused persons came behind them and snatched aforesaid bag in which cash worth Rs. 6,20,000/- were kept. Complainant was apprehended. He was interrogated. During interrogation, he has stated that he had lost Rs. 4,80,000/- in the gambling. Due to aforesaid loss he hatched a conspiracy with the aforesaid persons. While he was going on the motorcycle with Mahendra, accused persons came behind them and snatched aforesaid bag in which cash worth Rs. 6,20,000/- were kept. Thereafter, Mohit, Badal Jat, Pushpendra Sahu and Prashant Sen were apprehended. At their behest Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,30,000/-, Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 60,000/-, lathi, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- along with one black colour bag, depositing slip of SBI, thus total sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- was seized. After investigation, charge-sheet against aforesaid persons have been filed before the competent Court. But investigation under section 178(3) remains pending against present applicant/accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant/accused has no connection with the present crime. This case has been got registered against him just to harass him on the false pretext for unknown reasons and kept pending investigation against him. Initially, remaining accused were apprehended on the memorandum of complainant/accused Anshul Gupta, who in his memorandum no where alleged against the present applicant/accused that he was involved in the aforesaid conspiracy. Only co-accused Mohit at the bottom of his memorandum has stated that complainant main accused Anshul Gupta had lost Rs. 4,50,000/- in gambling and that amount he had paid to the present applicant/accused Sanjay Rana. Besides this, he was not involved in the aforesaid crime. He has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gulabchand Kannoolal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 1982 M.P.L.J. (F.B.) 7, in which section 5 of MPDVPK Act has been taken into consideration regarding anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the application on the ground that anticipatory bail is specifically barred under the provisions of MPDVPK Act. In these situation, the applicant does not deserve relief under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record. 7. In these situation, the applicant does not deserve relief under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and after perusing the case diary no incriminating material have been found to demonstrate the role of the applicant in the aforesaid crime, but without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the application should be allowed and by allowing the application it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority. 8. Applicant shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.