ORDER 1. This petition is filed seeking for a prayer to modify the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Trichy in Cr.M.P. No. 6113 of 2013 dated 28.11.2013 with regard to production of sureties from Bangaladesh and further direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Trichy to accept the sureties produced by the petitioner from Trichy. 2. The petitioner who is a Bangaladesh Nationalist, is suffering from HIV came to Trichy for treatment of his son and he was charged for the offences under Sections 4(1)(2)(c), 6(1)(a) of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, r/w Section 506 (ii) IPC, for the offences alleged to have been taken place on 29.05.2013. 3. The petitioner moved a bail application before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Trichy, and the said Judicial Magistrate passed an order allowing the petition on 28.11.2013 in Cr.M.P. No. 6113 of 2013, imposed conditions that the petitioner would be enlarged on bail on condition that the petitioner shall produce two sureties from his native place and that he shall execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- each. The trial Court’s reason for granting bail is that there is no charge sheet has been filed. Apart from that, the petitioner should appear before the Court daily for one month at 10.30 a.m and 5.00 p.m. 4. The petitioner has come forward for modification of the said order on the ground that the condition imposed on the petitioner is onerous and that it would be very difficult for the petitioner to arrange sureties from his Country. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioner was involved in serious offences and the reasons for letting out the petitioner on bail was that no charge sheet was filed and if the charges are established, it would be serious one and hence the condition need not be modified. 6. The petitioner relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Keshab Narayan Banerjee and Another v. State of Bihar AIR 1985 SC 1666 wherein it is held that a condition on a person to furnish a security of Rupee One Lakh in cash or in fixed deposit of any nationalised bank with two sureties residing in the State of Bihar each for a like sum, appears to be excessively onerous. The Apex Court held that it would virtually amount to denial of bail itself. The Apex Court held that it would virtually amount to denial of bail itself. Hence, the Apex Court enlarged the person on bail on modified condition and further held that the learned Special Judge should not insist that the appellants should produce sureties who are residing in Bihar only. In the another decision in Moti Ram and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1978 4 SCC 47 : LNIND 1978 SC 206 : (1979) 1 MLJ(Cri) 280 the Apex Court has held that the law does not prescribe sureties from outside and the law does not prescribe geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the Court District. In that case, the mason was asked to furnish two sureties each Rs. 10,000/- as surety. The Supreme Court held that it would amount to denial of bail. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer who has written the judgment for the Bench observed as follows. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” lampooned Anatole France. The reality of this caricature of equal justice under the law, whereby the poor are priced out of their liberty in the justice market, is the grievance of the petitioner. His criminal appeal pends in this Court and he has obtained an order for bail in his favour ‘to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate”. The direction of this court did not spell out the details of the bail, and so, the magistrate ordered that a surety in a sum of Rs. 10,000 be produced which, in actual impact, was a double denial of the bail benefit. For one thing the miserable mason, the petitioner before us, could not afford to procure that huge sum or manage a surety of sufficient prosperity. Affluents do not befriend indigents. For another, the magistrate made an odd order refusing to accept the suretyship of the petitioner’s brother because he and his assets were in another district. 2. If mason and millionaire were treated alike, egregious ineaglity is an inevitability. Likewise, geographic allergy at the judicial level makes mockery of equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. India is one and not a conglomeration of districts, untouchably apart.” 7. 2. If mason and millionaire were treated alike, egregious ineaglity is an inevitability. Likewise, geographic allergy at the judicial level makes mockery of equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. India is one and not a conglomeration of districts, untouchably apart.” 7. The petitioner being a HIV patient, came to India for treatment of his son and without filing of charge sheet, the matter is kept pending for years. The petitioner is willing to produce two sureties from India and more particularly, from Trichy. When the Court wants to grant certain order, it should be in such a way that it is an executable one and not a mere order for the sake of order. Hence, this Court feels that the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Trichy has got to be modified. The petitioner submits that he is willing to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Trichy, for 30 days after coming out on bail and he agrees to produce two sureties each Rs. 25,000/- from Trichy. The statement of the petitioner is accepted the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III is modified accordingly. 8. With the above modification the criminal original petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.