IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-28-2025 Date of Decision: April 22, 2025 Sheelo Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Petitioner – Sheelo Kaur has filed the present criminal revision challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, in Criminal Challan No. 250, dated 27.10.2012, arising from FIR No. 88, dated 16.05.2012, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda, whereby petitioner – Sheelo Kaur and two co-accused, namely, Pritam Singh and Sham Lal, have been convicted and sentenced for the offenses punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 465, 467 and 471 IPC, and they were awarded substantive rigorous imprisonment of one year for each offence besides payment of fine.

In appeal, bearing No. CRA-450-2017, preferred by the petitioner-Sheelo Kaur, the aforementioned judgment of conviction and PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.04.23 12:40 order of sentence has been upheld by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide impugned judgment dated 16.12.2024.

2. FIR (supra) against the petitioner – Sheelo Kaur and four others, i.e. (i) Jagjit Singh, (ii) Sham Lal, (iii) Nasib Kaur, and (iv) Pritam Singh, was registered on the basis of a letter sent by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Judge Special Court, Bathinda, through District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The prime allegation against the aforementioned accused persons is that by conniving with each other and by preparing forged documents, they furnished forged bail bond/surety bond for release of one Jagjit Singh, who was accused in a NDPS case, and granted bail on 19.09.2009. The role assigned to the present petitioner – Sheelo Kaur is that she impersonated as Sushma Rani and stood surety for Jagjit Singh (accused in NDPS case).

3. After adducing the evidence and analyzing the same, learned Trial Court in para Nos. 30 to 34 of its judgment of conviction, recorded the findings against the petitioner – Sheelo Kaur, which are reproduced as under:-

“30. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons present before the court is that the accused Sheelo Kaur impersonated herself as Sushma Rani and appeared as a surety in the bail bonds furnished by Jagjit Singh. Further the accused Pritam Singh and Sham Lal fraudulently identified the accused Sheelo Kaur as Sushma Rani before the court.

31. The case of the prosecution has been established against the accused Sheelo Kaur in the testimony of PW4 Dalbir Singh. Dalbir Singh was the Reader of the court in which Jagjit Singh had furnished his bail bonds which are Ex.PW4/A. In the said bail bonds PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.04.23 12:40 Ex.PW4/A, the name of Sushma Rani is mentioned as a surety of Jagjit Singh and the surety Sushma Rani has been identified by witnesses Sham Lal and Pritam Singh. The Photographs of the surety affixed on the said bail bonds Ex.PW4/A is of the accused Sheelo Kaur present before the court. This fact alone proves that the accused Sheelo Kaur had appeared before the court as Sushma Rani to give surety for Jagjit Singh.

32. Further PW4 in his cross examination states that during the furnishing of the bail bonds, he had compared the physical appearance of the surety which stood before him with the Photographs affixed on the bail bonds Ex.PW4/A, which confirms that the accused Sheelo Kaur was herself present before the court on the said day and was impersonating herself as Sushma Rani.

33. The samples of the thumb impressions of accused Sheelo Kaur were also taken in the court and the same are Ex.PW12/A. The said samples were sent to the Forensic Laboratory Phillour for their comparison with the thumb impressions of the surety affixed on the bail bonds Ex.PW4/A. The report