JUDGMENT 1. - This application under section 439(2) Cr.RC. seeks cancellation of bail order dated 8.5.2002 passed by this court in S B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1882/02 whereby anticipatory bail u/s. 438 Cr.RC. has been granted to the non-petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3, Ramji Lal, Ved Prakash and Genda Lal, respectively. 2. The relevant facts necessary for its disposal are that an FIR No. 113/2002 came to be registered at RS. Kotwali Alwar for the offences under sections 143, 323, 341 and 379, I.PC. but after investigation the challan was tiled for the offences under section 143, 341, 323 and 365 I.RC. This FIR was lodged by Anil Vashistha with the allegations that when he and his friend Vijendra Singh were coming from market to their house, they met Babu Lai Saini, Bhagwan Sahay and other 6-7 persons on the way who stopped them and asked their names. They gave beating to Vijendra Singh with lathies. The complainant fled away from there and came back on the spot with the relatives of Vijendra Singh, but they found that the accused persons had kidnapped/abducted Vijendra Singh. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners applied for anticipatory bail to this court which was granted by a co-ordinate Bench of this court. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has moved this application seeking cancellation of bail order passed in favour of the accused persons with the allegations that the accused persons have threatened the complainant and injured Vijendra Singh on 10/11 Aug. 2003 to break their hands and necks if they pursued the case against them pending in the court of Chief Judl. Magistrate. They also threatened the petitioner to kill him. The complainant also made a complaint in this regard in the court of the City Magistrate Alwar under sections 107 and 116(3) Cr.RC. It is further alleged that accused persons have threatened the prosecution witnesses namely Balvir Singh, the complainant, Anil Vashishtha the complainant Bijendra, the injured, and Laxman and have enclosed their affidavits. 3. After service of notice on the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2, a written reply denying the allegations made in the application, has been filed. It is pleaded that it is not specifically mentioned by the complainant as to what threats have been given. Non specific words allegedly uttered by the non-petitioners have been stated in the application. 3. After service of notice on the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2, a written reply denying the allegations made in the application, has been filed. It is pleaded that it is not specifically mentioned by the complainant as to what threats have been given. Non specific words allegedly uttered by the non-petitioners have been stated in the application. In the additional pleas, it is stated that the non-petitioners are not criminals and whereas complainant and Vijendra Singh are history-sheeters as several criminal cases are registered against them. The non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been granted regular bail by the learned C.J.M. Alwar vide his order dated 3.12.2002. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the order dated 8.5.02 granting anticipatory bail to non-petitioners No. 1 and 2. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in a case like the present one, the grant of anticipatory bail was unjustified and since they have abused the liberty of anticipatory bail granted to them by threatening the prosecution witnesses, their bail order should be cancelled and they should be lodged in jail. Learned PR also supports the learned counsel for complainant. 6. Learned counsel for non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 has submitted that the allegations being vague and devoid of material particulars do not form a valid, cogent and sound basis for cancellation of the bail particularly in view of the regular bail having been granted to the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2. 7. In the case of Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. ( 2003(7) Supreme 224 ) their lordships of the Apex Court have held that the application for anticipatory bail is entertainable in a suitable case and the bail can be granted in cases where either cognizance has been taken or a chargesheet has been filed. It has been laid down that the gravity of the offence is an important factor to be taken into consideration while granting such anticipatory bail so also the need for custodial interrogation, but these are only factors that must be borne in mind by the concerned courts while entertaining a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. The fact of taking cognizance or filing of charge sheet cannot by themselves be construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory bail. The fact of taking cognizance or filing of charge sheet cannot by themselves be construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory bail. In the present case, looking to the nature of allegations and all other facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this court found the grant of anticipatory bail justified to the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2. The considerations for grant of bail are different from grounds for cancellation of bail. The only ground on which the bail granted to the petitioners is sought to be cancelled is misused of bail by them by giving threatening to the complainant and the prosecution witnesses. But, as has been indicated above, the petitioner has not given particulars of the allegations. The allegations as mentioned in the application are on the face of it vague and bereft of the particulars so as to lend credence to them and justify cancellation of bail. They appear to have been levelled only in order to make out a case for cancellation of bail. After having gone through the entire record, I am of the well considered view that no valid and cogent ground for cancellation of bail is made out. 8. Therefore, this application for cancellation of bail is rejected.Application Rejected. *******