THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10687 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., against the order, dated 19-10-2010, in Crl.R.P.No.73 of 2010, wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar set aside the order, dated 18-09-2010, in Crl.M.P.No.3478 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy and directed release of the vehicle-lorry bearing No.A.P-29/T-5979 for interim custody of the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- besides imposing other conditions stated in the said order. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner is the owner of the said lorry. It is alleged that the said vehicle was involved in a number of cases of sand theft registered under Section 379 IPC. The said vehicle was seized and pending investigation pertaining to C.C.No.283 of 2010, petitioner filed Crl.P.M.P.No.3478 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar under Section 451 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate observing that the petitioner is in the habit of involving the crime vehicle in sand theft cases after releasing the same on interim custody and it was the third time the vehicle was involved in the same offence. It was observed that the Court felt that if the vehicle is again released on interim custody it would only encourage the offenders to use the crime vehicle in similar offences. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.73 of 2010 and by impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar and directed the interim custody of the petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/-, besides imposing other conditions. Aggrieved by the said direction to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000/- petitioner filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to have the interim custody of the vehicle on his executing personal bond instead of bank guarantee. In that connection, he relies upon a decision reported in VIJAY MOHAN SHIVHARRE v. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS [1], wherein the vehicle involved therein was directed to be released on execution of personal bond. 5. It is to be noted that in matters of this nature, there cannot be any hard and fast rule and the conditions that may be attached to the order directing release of the vehicle for interim custody varies from case to case depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the present case, in view of the specific allegation and also the observation made by the learned Magistrate that the same vehicle is repeatedly involved in a number of similar offences and after release of the vehicle for interim custody, petitioner would involve the same vehicle again and again in similar offences, the decision cited supra cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Having regard to the fact that number of cases were registered against the petitioner for the alleged theft of sand making use of the said vehicle, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000/- besides imposing other conditions. The impugned order does not therefore call for any interference by this Court as the said condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge can not be considered to be onerous or unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th October, 2010 Tsy [1] 2009(2) ALD (CRL) 694 ( AP)