( 1 ) A learned single Judge, doubting the correctness of the decision reported in 1986 All WC 51 : 1986 Cri LJ 365, Shakuntala Devi v. State, has referred the following three questions for consideration by a larger bench : 1. Whether the word may in Proviso (1) of S. 437, Cr. P. C. is directory or mandatory ?

( 2 ) WHETHER the word may used in Proviso (1) of S. 437, Cr. P. C. is to be read as shall and must ?

( 3 ) WHETHER the decision reported in 1983 Cri LJ page 365, Shakuntala Devi v. State of U. P. lays down a correct proposition of law ? 2. Another learned single Judge, being of the view that Shakuntala Devis case (supra) requires reconsideration, has referred the matter to larger Bench. 3. In the former case Pramod Kumar Manglik, the informant has prayed that Smt. Sadhna Ranis bail granted by the Magistrate on the strength of Shakuntalas case, be cancelled. In the later case, Smt. Chandrawati, an accused, seeks bail on the ground that the

( 4 ) WE have heard Shri A. B. L. Gaur and Shri S. P. S. Raghav for the applicant and the first proviso to S. 437, Cr. P. C. 1973 is mandatory. Consequently, these two matters have come up before us for consideration opposite pa