Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C., to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 17 dated June 10, 2002 under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at the C.B.I. (Anti Corruption Branch), Chandigarh. 2. The afore cited case was registered against the petitioner at the instance of the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, on the basis of the information received by the C.B.I. that during the year 2000-2001 Justice M.R. Agnihotri (Retired), the then Chairman, Dealer Selection Board of the Indian Oil Corporation, entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Shri K.C. Garg, resident of 21, Atam Nagar, Ludhiana, and Smt. Saroj Rani wife of Rajesh Kumar alias Vipin Kumar, resident of Dharaula, District Sangrur, to allot petrol pump to Smt. Saroj Rani at Doraha illegally with the object to cheat the Indian Oil Corporation, by abusing his official position as a public servant, even though she was not eligible for such allotment. The allotment was made on the basis of false and fictitious documents submitted by her. The said documents were got prepared by Shri K.C. Garg, who got the retail outlet allotted in the name of Smt. Saroj Rani by paying Rs. 30,00,000/- to the petitioner. It has been alleged that Smt. Saroj Rani is a house-wife, resident of Dhanaula and the petrol pump is being run by Shri K.C. Garg, who had already acquired eight petrol pumps in different names in spite of the fact that one cannot have more than one petrol pump. 3. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that in response to the advertisement 57 applications were received within the time limit prescribed by the Indian Oil Corporation, including the application of Smt. Saroj Rani wife of Rajesh Kumar, who mentioned herself as resident of 131, Atam Nagar, Ludhiana, falsely, though actually she was a resident of village Dhanaula, District Sangrur. The candidates were called for interview on May 8, 2001 and May 9, 2001. The candidates were short-listed to three in order of merit, as under :- (i) Smt. Saroj Rani (ii) Sandeep Kumar Pareek (iii) Parkash Suri 4. The candidates were called for interview on May 8, 2001 and May 9, 2001. The candidates were short-listed to three in order of merit, as under :- (i) Smt. Saroj Rani (ii) Sandeep Kumar Pareek (iii) Parkash Suri 4. In short, the case of the prosecution is that though Smt. Saroj Rani was not a resident of District Ludhiana, and thus was not eligible to be allotted a petrol pump, and that the other two candidates were more meritorious than her with regard to educational qualification and other spheres, such as capacity to provide infrastructure and facilities (land, godown, showroom etc.), yet she allotted the dealership of the petrol pump at Doraha (District Ludhiana), by showing undue favour to her by Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri by misusing his position as Chairman of the Dealer Selection Board. It has been alleged that Justice Agnihotri had awarded her marks out of proportion at the time of interview, though the other two members of the Board had awarded her less marks than awarded to the other two candidates. In this way, Justice Agnihotri had unduly favoured her in the allotment of dealership of the Petrol Pump at Doraha, after taking a bribe of Rs. 30,00,000/- through K.C. Garg accused. 5. The petitioner was granted ad interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated June 20, 2002. 6. Now Crl. Misc. No. 43797 of 2002 has been filed by the C.B.I. for vacation of the order dated June 20, 2002 vide which the arrest of the petitioner has been stayed by this Court. Vide order dated October 18, 2002 this application has been directed to be listed alongwith the main case. 7. It has been argued by Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the applications for allotment of retail outlet were received in pursuance of advertisement. The applications were then scrutinised by the Indian Oil Corporation at its own level. The applications of ineligible candidates were rejected by the Indian Oil Corporation itself. Thereafter, the candidates were called for interview by the Dealer Selection Board, whose Chairman, the petitioner was. It was not the function of the Chairman of the Board to re-verify the documents submitted by the candidates alongwith their applications. The applications of ineligible candidates were rejected by the Indian Oil Corporation itself. Thereafter, the candidates were called for interview by the Dealer Selection Board, whose Chairman, the petitioner was. It was not the function of the Chairman of the Board to re-verify the documents submitted by the candidates alongwith their applications. Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no specific guidelines had been laid down for assessing personality, business ability and salesmanship of the candidates. More so, it was the function of the Dealer Selection Board to scrutinise the comparative merits of the candidates who were people with divergent background and had come from different sections of the society. Thus, the counsel contends that the selection on this ground could not be challenged or suspected. In support of his contention Mr. Cheema has placed reliance on the Supreme Court authority reported as Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc., AIR 1990 Supreme Court 434, wherein it has been held by their lordship as under :- "It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc....." 8. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint filed by an unsuccessful candidate. It is the general tendency by unsuccessful candidates to make allegations of illegal gratification against the authorities at the helm of affairs. Thus, it has been contended by Mr. Cheema that the selection made by the Board should not be dubbed as having been made by taking illegal gratification through K.C. Garg accused. It is the general tendency by unsuccessful candidates to make allegations of illegal gratification against the authorities at the helm of affairs. Thus, it has been contended by Mr. Cheema that the selection made by the Board should not be dubbed as having been made by taking illegal gratification through K.C. Garg accused. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the arbitrary allotment of a rental outlet by itself would not constitute an offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the authority of the Kerala High Court reported as T.A. Rajendran v. Governor of Kerala and another, 1988 Crl.L.J. 68, wherein it has been held that "arbitrary grant of licence by itself would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d). Further, personal interest, by itself, also might not be sufficient to bring the resultant action within the scope of Section 5(1)(d)." 9. Still further, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the house of the petitioner was raided by the C.B.I. for 14 hours, which was followed by the search of bank lockers held by the family members of the petitioner. In spite of that nothing incriminating was found in the course of the marathon exercise. Further, it has been contended by him that the enquiry in the instant case had started almost ten months before the registration of the F.I.R. The entire original record was seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation during the enquiry. The petitioner never created any interference in the enquiry. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that in case of grant of anticipatory bail, the petitioner will create any hindrance in the investigation. 10. Lastly, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is 71 years old and has unblemished record during his practice as an Advocate and also during his tenure as a Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Central Bureau of Investigation has not found even a single incriminating document at the time of raid at his residence. His assets were also not found disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Central Bureau of Investigation has not found even a single incriminating document at the time of raid at his residence. His assets were also not found disproportionate to his known sources of income. The counsel further contended that after the stay of his arrest on June 20, 2002, the petitioner was never called to the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation for interrogation purposes. He contended that the petitioner never misused the concession of bail granted to him. He is always ready to join the investigation. 11. In order to controvert the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been contended by Mr. Rajan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., that Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri had allotted the retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation at Doraha to Smt. Saroj Rani, who was not eligible and had no land and finance. This allotment was made on the basis of false and fictitious documents submitted by her, for a consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The said sum was paid to Justice Agnihotri by one K.C. Garg. It has further been contended by Mr. Gupta and that Mr. Justice Agnihotri had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. He has also produced before this Court the statements made by certain persons wherein certain allegations have been levelled against K.C. Garg and Justice M.R. Agnihotri. On this basis it has been contended by him that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential for the fair investigation of the case. He has, thus, contended that the order staying arrest of the petitioner may be vacated. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents produced on record. Though serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner by the counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I., however, it has not been pleaded by him that the petitioner has ever misused the concession of the interim bail granted to him or that he did not join the investigation as and when he was called by the C.B.I. In fact, it is not the case of the C.B.I. that the petitioner was ever called for interrogation or for joining the investigation. Moreover, his house has already been raided by the C.B.I. He never created any hindrance in the process of law. Moreover, his house has already been raided by the C.B.I. He never created any hindrance in the process of law. In the light of the above discussion, the order dated June 20, 2002, passed by this Court, is made absolute. In case of arrest, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer. Order accordingly.