Vignesh v. Tthe State Rep By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.410 of 2023 registered by the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

2. No reasons given by the learned counsel for the petitioner to file inter state anticipatory bail application before this Court. The investigating officer is the second respondent. It is not known why the petitioner cannot go over to the Court which exercises territorial jurisdiction over the second respondent and had file anticipatory bail. No reasons had been given in that regard except to state the facts of the case. Inter state anticipatory bail can be entertained, if reasons are given as to why the petitioner has chosen this forum over and above the jurisdictional forum and the Court which exercises jurisdiction over the police station which had registered the first information report.

1/3

3. It must also be stated that jurisdiction is one aspect, but exercise of jurisdiction must be judicious and merely because jurisdiction is vested should not be exercised in all cases.

4. Since no reasons had been given, I am not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

23.01.2024 rjr 2/3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

rjr 23.01.2024 3/3