IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13242 of 2009 SURENDRA CHAUDHARY @ SATYENDRA PRASAD CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 22.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The prayer for bail was earlier rejected on16.12.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 48543 of 2008 noticing that the petitioner was the Branch Manager of the Bank. The allegations were under Section 409 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that subsequently a compromise had taken place. It is further submitted that it could not be pointed out on previous occasion that a compromise had taken place in between the parties and that the petitioner has reimbursed the money. Where the issue is with regard to the public fund, the mere payment cannot be a ground for anticipatory bail, but this may be certainly a relevant consideration for purpose of regular bail. The application is disposed of with the observations that any application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with the aforesaid discussion without being prejudiced by the present order. S.Sb/- (Navin Sinha, J.)