JUDGMENT 1. - Since these two criminal misc. applications for cancellation of bail pertain to and arise out of the same FIR No. 389/04 PS Madanganj, Ajmer for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120-B IPC and Section 34 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. A criminal complaint being No. 211/04 came to be filed by Smt. Sangeeta Garg against Ajay Kumar Garg, Shyam Sunder Agrawal and Kailash Agrawal before the court of Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kishangarh on 30.11.2004 which was forwarded to the police station Madanganj under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Upon receipt of this complaint FIR No. 389/04 was registered for the aforesaid offences and during the course of investigation the above-said non-petitioner apprehending their arrest in connection with the above case, non-petitioners Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Sunita Agrawal and Kailash Agrawal filed a Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26/05 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail which was allowed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge Kishangarh Ajmer on 10.2.2005. Thereafter, non-petitioner Ajay Kumar Garg also moved criminal bail application No. 35/05 under Section 438 Cr.PC. for anticipatory bail which was also allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer on 3.3.2005. 3. Aggrieved by the said orders, complainant Smt. Sangeeta Garg filed two criminal misc. applications being 1402/05 and 1520/05 before this court for cancellation of the aforesaid orders of the anticipatory bail passed in favour of the non-petitioners. But SB Criminal Misc. Application for Cancellation of Bail No. 1402/05 was dismissed on 11.4.2005 as withdrawn and S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for cancellation of Bail No. 1520/05 was disposed of on 10.5.2005 as the State of Rajasthan had already filed applications for cancellation of bail of the non-petitioners. 4. The State of Rajasthan has vide these two separate applications for cancellation of bail sought cancellation of bail orders dated 12.2.2005 and 3.3.2005 passed in favour of non-petitioners inter-alia on the ground that the orders granting anticipatory bail have been passed arbitrarily and after wrongly mentioning that the dowry articles have been deposited with the police. It was further pleaded that the non-petitioners were tampering with the prosecution evidence and influencing the witnesses being influential persons, but no affidavit in support of the aforesaid allegations has been filed in either of the cases. It was further pleaded that the non-petitioners were tampering with the prosecution evidence and influencing the witnesses being influential persons, but no affidavit in support of the aforesaid allegations has been filed in either of the cases. However, photo-stat copies of the complaint filed by the police under Section 107 and 116(3) Cr.PC. before the court of learned SDM, Kishangarh Ajmer have been filed alongwith a copy of the report filed by complainant Sangeeta Agrawal before the SHO complaining that the non-petitioners are threatening them. 5. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the non-petitioners and have also perused the relevant documents produced before me. 6. It is well settled proposition of law that the considerations for grant of bail are different from and independent of the grounds for cancellation of bail. They do not overlap. It is also well settled that the bail once granted cannot and ought not to be cancelled lightly and in a mechanical manner unless there are over-whelming circumstances referable to the conduct of the accused persons after their release on bail showing that they have either tampered with the evidence and/or threatened the witnesses. Both these factors require to be properly alleged and satisfactorily proved before the cancellation of bail once granted to them. 7. But, in the instant case, as indicated above, the application for cancellation of bail is bereft of necessary particulars as it neither states as to who threatened, whom and when and on what date. Even the photo-state copy of the complainant under Sections 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. is devoid of such particulars. The petitioner has not even chosen to file his affidavit in support of the allegations. As such, no cogent and valid case for cancellation of bail granted to the non-petitioners is made out on the stated ground. 8. So far as the allegation of mis-representation with regard to deposit of dowry articles for seeking bail is concerned the same also does not hold water in view of the law propounded by this court in Satya Rani v. The State of Rajasthan 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 544 that anticipatory bail cannot be refused simply because dowry articles have not been recovered. This apart, non-petitioners are said to have been enlarged on regular bail by the concerned court after filing of the charge-sheet. 9. This apart, non-petitioners are said to have been enlarged on regular bail by the concerned court after filing of the charge-sheet. 9. In this view of the matter, therefore, these applications for cancellation of bail deserve to be and are hereby rejected.Application rejected. *******