IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13001 of 2010 1. BHUPAL PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE LAKHI PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.-BHULNI P.S.-SAJOUR DIST.-BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER BANKA FOREST DIVISION P.S.- BANKA DIST.-BANKA 3. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER BHAGALPUR FOREST DIVISION P.S.-BANKA DIST.-BANKA ----------- 04. 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The short question involved in this application is whether the petitioner is required to be furnished a Bank guarantee for the release of his vehicle seized for alleged violation of the Forest Act or whether he is only required to furnish a bond. Section 53 of the Indian Forest Act reads as follows:- “53. Power to release property seized under Section 52.- Any Forest Officer of rant not inferior to that of a Ranger who, or whose sub- ordinate has seized any tools, boats, carts or cattle under section 52, may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof of a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required, before the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 20.4.2010 requiring the petitioner to furnish a Bank guarantee of Rs.13,20000/- for release of his Hydraulic Backhoe 2 Loader Machine is in excess of the statutory powers of the Forest Officer. Learned counsel for the State from the counter affidavit filed or the provisions of the Indian Forest Act is unable to satisfy the Court of the power in the authorities to call for a Bank guarantee, when the statutory provisions require a bond as a security for production of the released vehicle during the proceedings. The submission on behalf of the State that there is a confiscation proceeding against the petitioner is not relevant to the present controversy. A Bank guarantee is normally asked for due performance under a contract and failure to do so leading to confiscation of the Bank guarantee. There is no contractual agreement between the parties. The impugned order being far in excess of the statutory provision is not sustainable. The direction to furnish a Bank guarantee is set aside. The petitioner is required to now furnish a bond to the satisfaction of the authority upon which the vehicle in question shall be released forthwith in his favour under the order dated 20.4.2010. The application stands allowed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)