Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been filed for cancelling the bail granted to opposite parties no. 2 and 3 vide order dated 8.11.06 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44447/06 by this Court in Complaint Case No. 65C/ 05, corresponding to Bakhari P.S. Case No. 7/03. 3. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant had earlier filed complaint case on 4.2.03 for the offences under Sections 304B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the opposite parties aforesaid and on the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bakhari P.S. Case No. 7/03 was instituted and the police after investigation submitted final form no. 40/ 03 dated 14.7.03 not sending the accused including opposite parties for trial finding the case to be untrue. The police also recommended for proceeding under Sections 182 and 211 IPC against the present informant. But the learned Magistrate proceeded on complaint-cum-protest petition took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused to face trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ informant in this respect relied on annexure 5 which is the first information report dated 29.10.06 filed by him and annexure 6 series which is complaint dated 10.11.06 and 17.11.06 made to the Officer Incharge, Bakhari Police Station, Begusarai. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that annexure 5, FIR dated 29.10.06 does not bear allegation against the opposite parties rather it is directed against father in law and mother in law of the deceased and who were allowed bail vide order dated 12.10.06 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32385/06 by a Bench of this court. He further submits that annexures 6 and 6/1 contain ail concocted allegation and no case has been registered pursuant to it. He further submits that in view of the final report submitted by the police not charge-sheeting accused opposite parties 2 and 3 Rajesh Choudhary and his wife who happen to be brother-in-law and sister-in-law were allowed anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 8.11.06 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44447/06. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought any material to the notice of this court whether in enquiry or investigation any allegation made thereof either in annexure 5 and annexure 6 series, has been found substantiated against opposite parties. Misc. No. 44447/06. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought any material to the notice of this court whether in enquiry or investigation any allegation made thereof either in annexure 5 and annexure 6 series, has been found substantiated against opposite parties. Mere filing of a complaint against accused who have been granted bail cannot solely in itelf form a ground for cancellation of bail. In such situation the court does not find justifiable to cancel the bail on mere levelling of allegation unless the same is supported or corroborated by some materials on record which may come only in enquiry or investigation. 7. In the case of Vishwanath Tiwary vs. State of Bihar reported in 1988 Cr.L.J. 333, this Court held that ordinarily a court should not cancel the bail already granted to a person unless there are very cogent and overwhelming circumstances which compel the court to pass such order cancelling the bail. A person who is granted privilege of bail acquires a valuable right. Such privilege of right is not absolute in form and substance. The same is liable to be cancelled or withdrawn. If the accused misuses the privilege of bail by his act and conduct. If one breaches the condition prescribed in the bail order acts in derogation of such condition expected abide to the privilege of bail should be cancelled. Further there are long series of cases in this line. Moreover this court would find it expedient to refer to a decision reported in 2004(2) PLJR 193 (Shankar Sah vs. State of Bihar) wherein it is observed that mere allegation of threat by the other side would not constitute a ground for cancellation of bail unless the same is enquired into by the police or court and has found the same to be true. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the allegation levelled in annexure 6 has been substantiated by any further material either by way of enquiry or investigation. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order granting bail to the opposite parties. 9. In the result, this application is rejected.