P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THIS is the second application of the petitioner for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code' ). Petitioner is an accused in G. R. Case No. 586 of 1997 of the Court of S. D. J. M. , Dhenkanal arising out of Dhenkanal P. S. Case No. 167 of 1997. He was working in the Collectorate, Dhenkanal and as stated, retired as Office Superintendent-cum-Nazir. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on his retirement petitioner was given full retirement benefit and he possesses a sound service record. After his retirement, the office was auditted and in the audit report it has been shown regarding defalcation and misappropriation of huge amount along with the allegation of forgery etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that there is not an iota of evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and that as per the audit report some other officials are involved. He thus prays that petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. ( 3 ) IN Criminal Misc. Case No. 4939 of 1997 vide order dated 10-2-1998 this Court while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail on the prayer of the petitioner had observed that in the event of surrendering in the Court of S. D. J. M. , Dhenkanal on 16-2-1998 his bail applications would be disposed by the Courts below during the course of the day. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that because of ill health petitioner could not surrender on that date and some facts which were not placed at that time are now placed to reconsider the prayer for anticipatory bail. In that connection, petitioner draws attention of the Court to the statement in paragraph 5 of the additional affidavit filed today that petitioner has done extensive research work in the field of astrology and he is an internationally recognised figure. In other words, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that keeping in view petitioner's stature and status, his prayer for anticipatory bail may be favourably considered. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further states that because of ailment petitioner could not surrender on 16-2-1998 as per the order in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4939 of 1997. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further states that because of ailment petitioner could not surrender on 16-2-1998 as per the order in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4939 of 1997. Though it is stated that medical certificate was appended to this petition, but record does not reveal that way. However, medical certificate granted by Dr. Bijay Kumar Patnaik on 20-6-1998 has been produced at the time of hearing. It has been mentioned in that certificate that petitioner is suffering from Hypertension and Arthirites and has been advised full rest for a period of six weeks. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner alternatively argues that in the event of not allowing the prayer for anticipatory bail, direction may be issued for his surrender before the S. D. J. M. , Cuttack instead of S. D. J. M. , Dhenkanal in view of the aforesaid illness of the petitioner and in that connection, he cites the order dated 5-9-1997 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3217 of 1997 as a precedent. ( 6 ) LEARNED Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposes to the prayer for anticipatory bail made for the second time. He states that no justifiable reason has been shown for not surrendering in the Court of S. D. J. M. , Dhenkanal in terms of the previous order and the plea of illness on the relevant date is not substantiated by filing medical certificate for the relevant period. He further argues that fact and circumstances in Criminal Misc. Case No. 317 of 1997 (the cited case) are distinguishable. He thus argues that prayer for anticipatory bail be rejected and at the best direction may be issued for his surrender in the Court of S. D. J. M. , Dhenkanal. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel and taking note of the submissions made as above, it appears that after perusal of the original audit report, existence of a prima facie case for the offence alleged was found against the petitioner and in the absence of any special circumstances in favour of the petitioner, his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected incriminal Misc. Case No. 4939 of 1997. Case No. 4939 of 1997. At that stage, on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner would surrender in the Court of S. D. J. M. , Dhenkanal, an observation was made for disposal of the bail application by the Courts below during the course of the day of his surrender. Normally, in the event of non-appearance on the date fixed, applications could have been filed for re-fixing of another date. Petitioner did not take any such steps. But in this case, petitioner repeats the prayer adding some new ground. However, not taking such steps for modification of the order by change of date of surrender, is non-consequential while considering this petition. ( 8 ) NONETHELESS, it has to be seen whether there was justifiable ground for the petitioner not to abide by his own undertaking as per the order incriminal Misc. Case No. 4939 of 1997. In paragraph 13 of this application though the ground of illness has been advanced, but no medical certificate is available in support of illness on or around 16-2-1998. Therefore, no justifiable ground exists in favour of the petitioner not to comply with the direction in the earlier Criminal Misc. Case. ( 9 ) SO far as the merit of the case is concerned as noted earlier, after perusal of the audit report at the time of hearing of the bail petition incriminal Misc. Case No. 4939 of 1997 this Court found existence of a prima facie case. Under such circumstance, in the absence of any false accusation or purposeful harassment having been made to the petitioner by the investigating agency there is no necessity to invoke the power under Section 438 of the Code in favour of the petitioner. On that ground also petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail is devoid of merit. ( 10 ) SO far as the reputation of the petitioner in the field of astrology is concerned, that has nothing to do with the criminal charge revelled against him. Grant of anticipatory bail being extra-ordinary in character, such a prayer should be favourably considered in exceptional cases where it appears that the petitioner is falsely implicated or a frivolous case has been launched with a motive to harass him or tarnish his image or reputation and the cases of like nature. Grant of anticipatory bail being extra-ordinary in character, such a prayer should be favourably considered in exceptional cases where it appears that the petitioner is falsely implicated or a frivolous case has been launched with a motive to harass him or tarnish his image or reputation and the cases of like nature. Thus, when a prima facie case is made out from the materials in the case diary relating to commission of non-bailable offence and there is no material on the record to show or suggest that a false case has been foisted or that the authorities concerned and the investigating agencies are vindictive or acting with malice, prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail cannot and should not be favourably considered merely on the ground that on surrendering in the Court his reputation will be at stake. In view of the aforesaid finding and observation this Court does not find any merit in the application under Section 438 of the Code and the same is accordingly rejected. ( 11 ) COMING to the second part of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that incriminal Misc. Case No. 3217 of 1997 (cited case) a pregnant lady in advance stage and staying at Cuttack was permitted to surrender in the Court S. D. J. M. , Cuttack instead of S. D. J. M. , Panposh. Such is not the case so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Nature and gravity of the ailment certified by the doctor is not of such serious nature that petitioner cannot undertake journey of a distance of 60 Km. to appear in the Court of S. D. J. M. , Dhenkanal. Hence, the prayer to issue a direction for surrendering in the Court of S. D. J. M. , Cuttack stands rejected. Since the petitioner has failed to comply with the undertaking given regarding surrender on 16-2-1998, in normal circumstances no further direction should have been given. But keeping in view the principle of law that bail applications should be heard and disposed of expeditiously, it is observed that in the event petitioner shall surrender in the Court of S. D. J. M. , Dhenkanal in the aforesaid G. R. Case within seven days hence, his bail application if filed, be heard and disposed of by the Courts below as expeditiously as possible. However, in the meantime, police may arrest him if warrant is pending for execution. The Criminal Misc. case is disposed of accordingly. Petition dismissed. .