The investigation into the death of 26-year-old Ketan Agarwal has reached a critical juncture, with Pune Rural Police preparing to recreate the events at Lohagad Fort to test the accounts provided by those accused of his murder. The exercise represents a turning point in a case that initially appeared routine but has evolved into a complex criminal inquiry involving questions of motive, opportunity and deliberate intent.
Authorities have kept the timing of the crime scene reconstruction strictly confidential, citing both security concerns and the sensitive nature of an ongoing investigation. The recreation will focus on establishing a precise chronology of movements on the day Ketan died, examining the movements of the victim, accused Siya Goyal and her alleged associate Chetan Babulal Chaudhary throughout their time at the fort. The police intend to identify the exact location from which Ketan was allegedly pushed, calculate the distance and trajectory of his fall into the ravine below, and assess whether the physical evidence aligns with statements given during interrogation. A dummy body will be deployed during this exercise to assist officers in their analysis.
The reliance on circumstantial rather than direct evidence defines this investigation. With no eyewitnesses present at the moment of Ketan's death, police have adopted a meticulous approach to reconstructing the sequence of events. This necessitates examining what happened before and after the fatal incident in granular detail, tracing communications, movements and interactions across multiple visits to the fort over a three-week period.
Interrogation has yielded statements from seven individuals, each contributing pieces to the investigative puzzle. Among those questioned is Neeraj, an employee at Chetan's dry fruit business, who was held and questioned for over twenty-four hours. Although police found no direct evidence linking Neeraj to the alleged crime itself, his testimony has assumed significance because he reportedly revealed that Chetan had borrowed his mobile phone on the day in question. According to police, Chetan had deliberately left his own device behind and used Neeraj's phone to maintain contact with Siya. This detail—the apparent concealment of communication records—could suggest premeditation or an attempt to obscure the chain of events. Investigators are now considering elevating Neeraj's status from suspect to key prosecution witness.
The alleged pattern of visits to Lohagad Fort reveals what police characterize as mounting intent. The couple's first expedition occurred on May 31, described as an initial reconnaissance. On June 4, Siya purportedly sought to return to the site, but Ketan's mother intervened and prevented the visit. A subsequent outing on June 14 allegedly saw Siya attempt to push Ketan from a cliff edge, an act he survived by grasping a nearby bush. When confronted, Siya offered an explanation that she had perceived a snake and acted to protect him. Police view this June 14 incident not as an isolated mishap but as a failed first attempt, followed two weeks later by a successful killing on June 18.
Siya's parents have taken an unusual public stance, declaring that if their daughter is convicted, she deserves the severest punishment available under law. Their statement carried an emotional dimension, suggesting she should face the same fate as her alleged victim—a push from the identical cliff where Ketan fell. Such a statement from family members typically signals either a complete rupture in relations or confidence in a narrative that distinguishes them from culpability.
The circumstances of how the relationships intersected add context to police allegations. Siya Goyal, who operated a bakery business, met Chetan through a business meeting last year. According to investigators, their romantic connection began in November 2025 at a time when Siya's marriage to Ketan was already being arranged and planned. Ketan, meanwhile, held a position as Director and Chief Marketing Officer of Success Group, his family's real estate enterprise, indicating someone of financial means and social standing. Police allege that Siya expressed concern about Ketan's family's influence and wealth, suggesting she felt trapped in the marriage arrangement and unable to escape without consequences.
Siya's mother has mounted a counter-narrative to police claims. She contends that her daughter was reluctant to undertake trekking expeditions and that Ketan himself suggested the trips. She further alleges that Ketan's mother encouraged Siya to accompany him on these outings. This account, if established, would substantially undermine prosecution claims regarding Siya's motive and agency in arranging the fatal visit. The conflicting narratives reflect a fundamental dispute about who initiated the fort visits and why.
The handling of evidence in cases involving circumstantial evidence depends heavily on demonstrating coherent timelines and establishing psychological or financial motives. Investigators will need to demonstrate not merely that Siya and Chetan had opportunity to harm Ketan, but that their actions and communications reveal a pattern inconsistent with innocent explanations. The mobile phone detail—Chetan's apparent use of another person's device—could prove pivotal if investigators can establish that this substitution was deliberate and aimed at avoiding a record of his communications.
What distinguishes this case from routine trekking accidents is the alleged prior attempt at homicide on June 14 and the pattern of repeated visits despite ostensible obstacles. Police narrative suggests escalating intent culminating in a successful outcome on the third attempt. The investigation now enters its reconstruction phase, where the physical geography of the fort, the distances involved, the plausibility of the fall, and the consistency of accounts with observable reality will be tested against expert assessment and physical evidence.
The legal proceedings remain active as investigators pursue this avenue of inquiry. The case carries significance beyond the immediate circumstances, touching on questions of motive related to matrimonial arrangements, the intersection of business relationships and romantic entanglements, and the apparent involvement of multiple actors in an alleged conspiracy. As Pune Rural Police prepare their crime scene reconstruction, the evidence gathering continues to focus on whether the available facts support intentional murder or whether competing explanations remain viable under judicial scrutiny.
