JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched merits of the case and he is not seeking bail on merits. 2. The case of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner should be granted bail under proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the term 'may' used in the proviso should be used as 'must'. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Dr. Manjula v. State, 1993 RCC 4 (Raj.) , Smt. Sunder v. State, 1990 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) , Kane v. State, 1987 Cr.L.W. (Raj.) 312 , Smt. Rameshwari v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 601 , Smt. Durga v. State, 1983 RCC 100 (Raj.) , Smt. Choki v. State, AIR 1957 Raj. 10 , State of U.P. v. Joginder Singh, 1963 SC 1618 , A.C. Agarwal v. Smt. Rama Kali, AIR 1968 SC 1 , Ratanlal v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 104 and Wasim Beg v. State of U.P., 1998 SCC 321 , Smt. Uchhab Kanwar v. LRs of Ram Swaroop, AIR 1995 Raj. 209 . He contends that since the word 'may' has been sused as difference to the high authorities of the Court, the proviso should be read that bail must be granted to the lady petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on certain decisions of this Court where bail has been granted to the lady petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to point out a single case where bail had been granted not on the facts and circumstances of the case but only on proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. He has failed to point out any single case where bail was granted only on the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. and not on the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, the second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is incorrect. 3. 3. As regard the first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no dispute that Legislature has often been using term 'may' out of difference, but in my humble opinion, the term 'may' used in the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. is not intended to be 'must', otherwise, the Courts would be left with no discretion to exercise in relation to bail application filed by the lady accused and it would be an automatic order for lady accused as and when they are arrested. They would be bound to be released, which is not the intention of the Legislature. The discretion is vested in the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not drawn attention of the Court towards merits of the case, therefore, this Court is not in a position to Judge whether petitioner is entitled to be granted bail on merits, therefore, only on proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The bail application is rejected.Bail application rejected. *******