A learned Single Judge doubting the correctness of the decision reported in 1986 AWC 51 : 1986 Criminal Law Journal 365, Shakuntla Devi v. State, has referred me following three questions for consideration by a larger bench.

(1) Whether the word may in Proviso (1) to Section 437, Cr. P. C. is directory or mandatory

(2) Whether the word may used in proviso (1) of Section 437, Cr. P. C. is to be read as shall and "must

(3) Whether the decision reported in 1986 Cr. L. J. page 365 - Shakuntala Devi v. Slate 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 Shakuntala s case, be cancelled. In the later case, Smt. Chundrawati, an accused, seeks bail on the ground that the first proviso to Section 437, Cr. P. C. , 1973 is mandatory. Consequently, these two matters have come up before us for consi deration.

4. We have heard Shri A. B. L. Gaur and Shri S. P. S. Raghav for the appli cant a