As per case facts, petitioners, including Bommarillu Farms and its director, sought to transfer criminal cases from Srikakulam to Visakhapatnam. The aim was to club these cases with C.C. Number ... 36 of 2017, arguing that the matters involved the same accused, similar subject matter, and a common investigation by the CID, which would prevent conflicting judgments and ease their travel from Hyderabad. The respondent State contended that each case represented a distinct offense with unique victims and occurrences, and importantly, the petitioners had been discharged from a key charge under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act in the Visakhapatnam case, while this charge remained pending in the Srikakulam cases.The question arose whether the transfer of criminal cases from Srikakulam to Visakhapatnam was justified, considering the petitioners' stated convenience, the alleged similarity of cases, and the legal provisions regarding judicial jurisdiction and the prerequisites for a fair trial, especially given the disparity in charges between the cases proposed for clubbing.Finally, the High Court found no merit in the petitioners' request, ruling that the cases were not similar enough to be tried together, particularly because the petitioners were discharged from a significant charge in the Visakhapatnam case, which was still active in the Srikakulam matters. The Court emphasized that transferring a case is an extraordinary measure, not to be granted solely for the accused's convenience but rather based on the broader interests of justice, the prosecution, other accused, and witnesses. It noted that most witnesses reside in Srikakulam, and transferring the cases would undermine jurisdictional provisions and cause undue hardship to depositors. Citing precedents, the Court concluded that exceptional circumstances were not met, and no credible grounds for bias or failure of justice in Srikakulam were demonstrated, leading to the dismissal of the transfer petitions.