JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This criminal petition is filed by the petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.128/2020 of Harapanahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 125(A) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one D.Linganaik, advocate of Davanagere filed a petition through his advocate B.Revanagouda to various authorities from Prime Minister of India to Deputy Superintendent of Police Harapanahalli on 02.02.2016 alleging that there is a threat to his life and requested to take action against the concerned persons and head master. It is further alleged that in the said petition the petitioner No.2 P.Bharath was born on 07.11.1994 in Chigateri Hospital, Davanagere and his birth is registered in Birth Registrar office and he has studied his primary in English medium school and thereafter in Shivaganga Education Institution, Tolahunishihalli near Davanagere from 8th to 10th standard and his date of birth is registered in the school register. It is his further submission that P. Bharath has contested the Laxmipur Gram Panchayat elections held in the month of May/June of 2015 though he was less than 21 years by taking influence and life threat to the Head Master, he got altered month in his date of birth from 11 to 01 and showing that he was aged above 21 years and he was made President of Gram Panchayat by petitioner No.1 by misusing his power when he was minister. On coming to know about this fact they enquired with concerned persons and they behave rudely and gave threat to him. Hence, he apprehend of life threat. Based on the complaint, a case came to be registered in Harapanahalli Police Station in Crime No.128/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC r/w Section 125(A) of Representation of Peoples Act 1951 and 1988 on 06.08.2020. In the said case, these petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 and unknown Head Master as accused No.3. Petitioners approached 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Court, Ballari sitting at Hospete in Crl.Misc.No.5237/2020 for grant of anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by order dated 04.09.2020. Hence, petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. Petitioners approached 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Court, Ballari sitting at Hospete in Crl.Misc.No.5237/2020 for grant of anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by order dated 04.09.2020. Hence, petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint is dated 02.02.2016 and the case came to be registered in the year 2020 and there is a delay in filing the complaint. It is his further submission that the main allegation is made against the Head Master of the school and she has been granted with anticipatory bail by the trial Court. It is his further submission that the case of the prosecution is based on the documents. It is his further submission that petitioner No.1 is a sitting MLA and there are no chances of his absconding. It is his further submission that offences alleged against the petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 2 are triable by the Magistrate and not punishable with death or imprisonment for the life. It is his further submission that petitioners apprehend their arrest. With this he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP has contended that petitioner No.1 is a sitting MLA and there are chances of hampering the investigating and tampering the prosecution witnesses. It is her further submission that accused No.3 altered the date of birth of petitioneraccused No.2 at the instigation of petitioner-accused No.1. It is her further submission that investigation is still in progress, if petitioners are granted with bail, they will flee from justice and hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. With this she prays to reject the anticipatory bail petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the FIR and Complaint. Looking to the entire complaint, it reveals that the there is alteration of month in the date of birth of petitioner-accused No.2 by Head Master at the threat/instigation of the petitioner-accused No.1 who is sitting MLA. As per the complaint, the date of birth of the petitioner No.2 is 07.11.1994 and it came to be altered as 07.01.1994 so as to make the petitioner No.2 eligible to contest the Gram Panchayath election. As per the complaint, the date of birth of the petitioner No.2 is 07.11.1994 and it came to be altered as 07.01.1994 so as to make the petitioner No.2 eligible to contest the Gram Panchayath election. The case of the prosecution is based on the documents. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. 7. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) AIR SC 312 , the Hon ble Supreme Court after analyzing various previous judgments and guidelines, has enumerated the following factors and parameters that can be taken into consideration by courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused s likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Penal code, 1860, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. 8. As the FIR registered against the petitioners they apprehend their arrest. The case of the complainant is based on documents. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Whether the petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them can only be ascertained after investigation and trial. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER Criminal petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.128/2020 of Harapanahalli Police Station with the following conditions: I. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. II. Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today. III. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required. IV. II. Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today. III. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required. IV. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. V. The petitioners shall not obstruct or hamper the Police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Police.