Judgment 1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the search and seizure of his truck bearing registration no. BR 31A 3461G and for release of the same which has been confiscated. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the truck and one day prior to the occurrence the said truck carried some bananas from Hajipur to Rajgir. While returning from Rajgir, the driver of the truck loaded some boulders on it. The truck was intercepted by the Forest Officer suspected of being forest legacy. On enquiry the driver showed the spot from where the boulders were lifted which fell in the district of Gaya. Thereafter confiscation proceeding was started and the truck was confiscated by order dated 21.2.2007 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya in Confiscation Case No. 14 of 2006 in terms of a decision rendered by Honble Apex Court in the case of State of Kamataka Vs. K. Krishnan, (2000)7 SCC 80 . 3. In the aforesaid case the Honble Apex Court emphasized that the vehicle in question should be released on furnishing cash surety/Bank guarantee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the search and seizure on the ground that the Forest Officer did not have power under Section 52D of the Forest Act to make search and seizure of any premises or vehicle. He further submits that the Full Bench of Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Bijay Krishna Sahay Vs. State of Bihar, 1998(3) P.L.J.R. 429 have held that the Authorised Officer shall take into account relevant evidence/materials even if obtained on illegal search and seizure after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect thereof to the person whose property is sought to be confiscated. He submits that the complicity of the owner of the truck has not been established in the entire proceeding and as such the petitioner cannot be held liable and his truck ought not to have been confiscated. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya, the petitioner should furnish adequate Bank guarantee in terms of the decision of the Honble Apex Court. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya, the petitioner should furnish adequate Bank guarantee in terms of the decision of the Honble Apex Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into totality of the circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the vehicle in question is lying in open sky since 21/2 years, this court is of the view that in case the petitioner furnishes a Bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) the vehicle bearing registration no. BR 31A 3461G would be released in favour of the petitioner, after being satisfied about his ownership of the vehicle. 7. It is made clear that the release of the vehicle in question will be subject to the result of the criminal proceedings. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.