IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18909 of 2010 SURESH PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03. 07.07.2010 Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the I.P.C. The allegation is against the contractor and the engineer for making payment without the execution of the work. The work was of sinking tube well. Subsequently during the investigation the D.I.G. and S.P. exonerated the contractor. Though petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was rejected on 14.05.2008 vide Cr. Misc. No. 1631 of 2008 on the ground that during investigation, it was found that still the work has not been completed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime the situation has changed as investigation is still pending but the government vide Memo No. 970 dated 13.09.2008 as contained in Annexure-5 directed for deduction of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner to compensate the loss and in the meantime the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. It is submitted that if the privilege of bail will 2 not be given to the petitioner then recovery will be forestalled. Learned counsel for the State, however submits that earlier the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has been rejected. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioner since it was rejected earlier. However, if petitioner surrenders and apply for regular bail then the regular bail application of the petitioner will be considered sympathically preferably on the same day because in the changed situation as discussed above, I think it is a fit case for regular bail. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed off. Shageer ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)