JUDGMENT : TUDBALL, J. 1. The applicant has been ordered to furnish security for his good behaviour in his own bond for Rs. 100, with one surety, for a period of one year. The Magistrate orders that “this security must be furnished of a respectable gentleman resident of the same village or of a neighbouring village in which the accused is living.” The only objection taken before me to this order is that the Magistrate has without reason narrowed down there a within which the sureties must reside. 2. It always seems to me quite unnecessary, not to say improper, in an order passed under these sections to demand that the surety shall be a resident of any particular place. 3. In accepting a surety if the Magistrate is satisfied that he can exercise proper influence over the person who has been bound over, it, surely, is immaterial where that person may reside. I therefore modify the lower court's order to this extent that I strike out the words “residents of the same village, or of a neighbouring village in which the accused are living,” and substitute for them the words “who is in a position to control and influence the persons who have been ordered to furnish the security.”