AB 6/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. Case Diary has been produced. Perused the same. The learned counsel for the pe titioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a compromise deed between the informant and the accused-petitioner evidencing a settlement between them, where under, the amount of Rs.47,000/- said to have been misappropriated by the latter has since been returned. Mr. Talukdar submits that the petitioner is no longe r in the employment of the informant. In view of the above, this Court for the present, refrains from making any comme nt on the contents of the C.D. produced. However, having regard to the developm ent as pointed out by the petitioner, the interim order of pre-arrest bail is ma de absolute. The instant applicant stands closed.