IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17622 of 2009 1. SHESHNATH CHOWDHARY S/O BABULAL CHOUDHARY R/O VILL-PAARKA, P.S-MANUWA POOL, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER-CUM-FOREST DIVISIONAL OFFICER -CUM-DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BALMIKI TIGAR PROJECT,CHAMPARAN DIVISION-I (BETTIAH) ----------- 2. 6.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2007, passed by the Authorized Officer- cum-Forest Divisional Officer in Confiscation Case No. 2 of 2007 as affirmed by the Collector West Champaran in Criminal Misc. Case No. 10 of 2007-08 dated 3.10.2008, directing confiscation of the motorcycle of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that as per allegations, certain forest produce was being transported on a horse cart. It is alleged that the motorcycle in question bearing Registration No. BR 22C/3735 was escorting the horse cart. The horse cart has not been seized but the motorcycle has been seized. Since no forest produce was being transported on the motorcycle, there is no justification for seizure of the same under Section 52 2 of the Forest Act. It is next submitted that no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the vehicle in custody as it is only liable to deterioration during the pendency of the case possibly rendering it unfit as a motorcycle by passage of time by neglect. The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish adequate security for production of motorcycle during the trial. Counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate from the impugned order that the horse cart on which forest produce is alleged to have been transported was ever seized as issue specifically urged by the petitioner but left undecided. The impugned order does not hold that any forest goods were being transported on the motorcycle in question. If no forest produce was being transported on the motorcycle in question and no useful purpose is going to be served by retaining the motorcycle in custody, which shall only be subjected to deterioration and ultimately may no more be useful by the end of the trial as a motorcycle due to neglect, the interest of justice demands that the motorcycle be released to the petitioner during the pendency of the case subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority on furnishing of adequate security and bond by the petitioner for production of the motorcycle in 3 question during the trial as and when it may be so ordered. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside. The writ application stand allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)