JUDGMENT M. Wahajuddin, J. - From the State side reliance was placed upon the case of State v. Jiwa Ram, 1967 AWR 425 in support of the argument that as earlier the applicant was on bail for non-bailable offence, he cannot be granted bail in the present case in a non-bailable offence like that of murder. There is, however, a later pronouncement of this very Court of Lucknow Bench Mathu v. State, 1979 Lucknow Law Journal 72, in which it was held that bail in the later case cannot be refused on the sole basis that that liberty has been misused and it is open for prosecution to move for cancellation of bail in earlier case. According to the law of interpretation if there are two pronouncements of the same Court of same number of Judges, then it is to later pronouncement which the Court has to follow. In the circumstances, 1 may have to consider the merits. What is being urged is that the version in the first information report regarding the manner of attack and incident is contradictory to the version given under Section 161, Cr.P.C., of the maker of the report. In fact, the stress is that the presence of the report becomes uncertain. After considering the entire arguments and without expressing any opinion on merits. I think it would be better and desirable to release the applicant on bail. The applicant, Govind Narain Dhar Dubey alias Gopal Dhar Dubey be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur.