JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J. The common question of law and facts are involved in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 155 of 2012 and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 156 of 2012, therefore this judgment shall dispose of both petitions filed by Bidhi Chand father of Meenakshi Devi died on 7.12.2011. Manoj Kumar respondent No. 2 in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 155 of 2012 is the husband of the deceased. Roop Singh respondent No. 2, Nirmala Devi respondent No. 3 in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 156 of 2012 are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased. It has been stated that Meenakshi Devi and Manoj Kumar were married with on 9.12.2009. Manoj Kumar and his parents started harassing Meenakshi for dowry. Meenakshi made statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. and thereupon FIR No. 200 of 2011 was registered on 4.12.2011 u/s 498A IPC at Police Station, Nadaun. 2. In the FIR specific allegation was made by Meenakshi against the father-in-law that on 8.2.2010 he tried to outrage the modesty of Meenakshi. Manoj Kumar in connivance with his parents had been harassing Meenakshi for bringing more dowry. The statement made by Meenakshi u/s 154 Cr.P.C. is in a way a dying declaration as Meenakshi expired later on. 3. Manoj Kumar and his parents were arrested. Nirmala Devi filed bail application No. 172 of 2011, Roop Singh filed bail application No. 173 of 2011. The learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur allowed both the bail applications by common order on 24.12.2011. Manoj Kumar filed bail application No. 185 of 2011, this was also allowed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 19.1.2012. 4. Meenakshi had suffered 91% burn injuries. She was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where she expired after a period of three days, before that Meenakshi made statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. and on that basis case was registered. The learned Sessions Judge despite that granted bail to Manoj Kumar, Roop Singh and Nirmala Devi accused. The grievance of the petitioner is that no case was registered u/s 354 Cr.P.C. (sic) against Roop Singh. The learned Sessions Judge took the bail applications of accused in cursory manner and allowed the same. In view of categorical statement of Meenakshi the bail should not have been granted to Manoj Kumar, Roop Singh and Nirmala Devi. 5. The private respondents after release from custody are threatening the witnesses, who have complained to the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge took the bail applications of accused in cursory manner and allowed the same. In view of categorical statement of Meenakshi the bail should not have been granted to Manoj Kumar, Roop Singh and Nirmala Devi. 5. The private respondents after release from custody are threatening the witnesses, who have complained to the petitioner. The witnesses have said that it would be very difficult for them to give evidence against private respondents. The petitioner has been threatened by private respondents. The police was informed but without any result. 6. The private respondents have violated the conditions of the bail. They have misused the liberty granted to them. It has been stated that private respondents are liable to be taken into custody after cancelling their bails. 7. The private respondents have filed replies in each petition. They admitted the registration of the case but denied the remaining stand of the petitioner. It has been stated that deceased was hypersensitive and short tamper and had suicidal tendency. The deceased earlier tendered apology before police on 9.1.2011. Manoj Kumar had been working at Baddi and was not in a position to keep deceased with him who had been insisting to take her to Baddi or she would commit suicide. The deceased was provided all necessities of life by her husband. There was no demand of dowry. The allegations in the FIR are false. The private respondents have stated that they have not misused the liberty nor ever talked to any person over the issue. 8. The respondent No. 1 in each petition has also filed reply and has stated that the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail by exercising discretion. The threats to the witnesses were never brought to the notice of respondent No. 1. It has also been stated that there is an apprehension that private respondents may extend threats to the prosecution witnesses. It has been stated that no complaint regarding flouting the condition of bail has been received by the Investigating Agency. 9. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR has been lodged on the statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. of Meenakshi on 4.12.2011. The complainant died at PGI, Chandigarh on 7.12.2011 due to burns. It has been stated that no complaint regarding flouting the condition of bail has been received by the Investigating Agency. 9. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR has been lodged on the statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. of Meenakshi on 4.12.2011. The complainant died at PGI, Chandigarh on 7.12.2011 due to burns. The statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. of the deceased is now a dying declaration; therefore, in view of gravity of the offence and material on record the learned Sessions Judge has erred in granting the bail. It has been submitted that now the matter is before the High Court, therefore, the High Court should interfere by setting aside the bail granting order dated 24.12.2011 to Roop Singh and Nirmala Devi and order dated 19.1.2012 granting bail to Manoj Kumar. He has also submitted that private respondents have misused the liberty granted to them by learned Sessions Judge by releasing them on bail. The private respondents have extended threats to the prosecution witnesses who now have shown their helplessness to depose against private respondents. It has been submitted that bail granted to private respondents may be cancelled. The learned counsel for the private respondents has opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. The granting of bail and cancellation of bail u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. have different considerations. The bail application of the accused is to be allowed or dismissed in accordance with the facts of the case and settled principles for granting and refusing bail. Once bail has been granted, the aggrieved person has remedy to challenge the order before the competent superior Court. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the private respondents on 24.12.2011 and 19.1.2012. These orders have not been assailed. The respondent No. 1 has stated that the learned Sessions Judge has exercised discretion in granting the bail in favour of private respondents. The petitioner till now has not challenged the bail granting order to private respondents. The petitioner has opted to file petition u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail. 11. The cancellation of the bail is also governed by well established principles. The petitioner till now has not challenged the bail granting order to private respondents. The petitioner has opted to file petition u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail. 11. The cancellation of the bail is also governed by well established principles. The post bail conduct of the accused is most material factor for cancellation of bail u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has alleged that prosecution witnesses have been threatened by private respondents after they were released on bail. This has been denied by the private respondents. The allegations with respect to threats to the prosecution witnesses are vague. No date, place or names of the prosecution witnesses have been disclosed in the petitions who have been threatened by the private respondents. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner brought this fact to the notice of police or trial Court that witnesses of the prosecution have been threatened. Similarly, no prosecution witness has come forward and reported the police or to the trial Court that he has been threatened by private respondents not to support the prosecution. 12. The respondent No. 1 has stated in the reply that no complaint has been received regarding threats to any prosecution witness. The apprehension of respondent No. 1 that private respondents may tamper with the prosecution witnesses is not enough for cancellation of bail u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. till it has been actually established that private respondents have in fact threatened the prosecution witnesses after granting of the bail. The allegations made by the petitioner have not been established on record so as to proceed against the private respondents for cancellation of bail. The cancellation of bail is a serious matter and vague allegations are not enough for cancelling the bail once granted. There is no merit in both the petitions. In view of above discussion, both the petitions are dismissed.