Somaiya College employee denied bail in fake certificate scam; court cites evidence of conspiracy | Official/Facebook
Mumbai: The sessions court has refused to grant bail to 40-year-old Khar resident Sharad Janardan Shirodkar, an employee at KJ Somaiya College, booked for providing admission to students based on fake certificates.
The accused were booked after the college registered a complaint with Tilak Nagar police as they found that certificates submitted by several students were fabricated. Shirodkar is also said to be involved in the conspiracy.
Apprehending his arrest, Shirodkar moved a plea for anticipatory bail and said, he has been made escape goat to hide the other offenders involved in the commission of the offence. He also claimed that he is not involved in work of verification of the documents of the students. He is employee on the contract basis and assigned with the work of verification of scholarship form and Railway concessions form.
The prosecution however objected the plea saying, Shirodkar’s role came in to picture during the investigation, wherein various witnesses stated his involvement. Besides, the investigation revealed that he ha transferred an amount of Rs 4.99 lakhs and Rs 1.30 lakhs to co-accused Arjun Rathod in between June 17, 2024 and June 18 2024. Also the prosecution pointed out that call data records showed that the accused was in touch with the co-accused.
The court after referring to all the material, observed that, “it appears that during the investigation with co-accused Mahendra Patil the name of the present applicant is transpired to be the person who allegedly prepared the leaving certificate of the co-accused students. Apart from the statement of the co-accused, there are statements of the witnesses showing the involvement of the applicant in securing admission of the students and accepting money from the parents of the students.”
Hence the court rejected his plea observing, “therefore, to unfold the crime and the conspiracy, the racket involved in the commission of the offence, I hold that physical custody of the applicant/accused is necessary to the police for the purpose of investigation.”
