The investigation into the death of 26-year-old Ketan Agarwal has shifted into a critical phase, with Pune Rural Police preparing for a detailed reconstruction of events at Lohagad Fort in Maharashtra's Sahyadri range. The exercise is designed to establish a clear chronology of what occurred on the day of the incident and to test the narrative presented by the accused. The timing and specific logistics of the reconstruction have been kept under wraps for both security and investigative reasons, though law enforcement officials have confirmed the activity will proceed in the coming days.
At the heart of the police investigation is a theory that Ketan was pushed from the fort by two individuals: Siya Goyal, who was in an arranged marriage with him, and Chetan Babulal Chaudhary, a businessman with whom Siya allegedly developed a romantic relationship. During the reconstruction, officers intend to trace the movements of all three individuals across the fort grounds, pinpoint the precise location from which Ketan is believed to have fallen, and calculate the trajectory and distance of his descent into the ravine below. A dummy body will be employed during this exercise to simulate the dynamics of the alleged push and fall.
The case has proven challenging for investigators because it lacks direct eyewitness testimony to the fatal moment itself. This absence of corroborating accounts means law enforcement has had to rely on circumstantial evidence, including the timeline of events leading up to and immediately following Ketan's death. Police have therefore devoted considerable effort to mapping out Ketan's interactions and movements in the weeks before his death, examining communications, and piecing together a pattern of behaviour from those around him.
To date, statements have been recorded from seven individuals connected to the case. Among them is Neeraj, an employee at Chetan's dry fruit business, who spent more than 24 hours in police custody undergoing interrogation. Although investigators have found no direct evidence linking Neeraj to the alleged crime itself, he may hold significant evidentiary value. According to police, Neeraj revealed that Chetan had borrowed his mobile phone on the day of the incident, having deliberately left his own device behind. Police believe this borrowed phone was used by Chetan to maintain contact with Siya, a detail that investigators are treating as potentially crucial in establishing the accused's state of mind and movements.
The narrative presented by police describes a calculated sequence of events spanning several weeks. Police allege that Siya made multiple attempts to lure Ketan back to Lohagad Fort. The couple first visited the site on May 31. When Siya requested another visit on June 4, Ketan's mother refused to allow it. However, during a subsequent trek to the fort on June 14, police claim Siya made the first attempt on Ketan's life, allegedly pushing him towards a cliff edge. According to this account, Ketan managed to grab onto a bush and save himself. When confronted about the incident, Siya allegedly fabricated an explanation, claiming she had spotted a snake and pushed him to protect him from danger.
The fatal visit took place on June 18, when Ketan made what would be his final journey to Lohagad Fort. Police have alleged that during this visit, both Siya and Chetan were present, and together they successfully pushed Ketan from the cliff, resulting in his death. The incident was initially treated as an accidental fall that occurred during an ordinary trekking expedition, but as police began interviewing witnesses and examining the circumstances more closely, the investigation pivoted dramatically towards a homicide inquiry.
Police have constructed a motive based on Siya's alleged statements to investigators. According to law enforcement, Siya expressed frustration that Ketan had claimed his family possessed considerable financial influence and social standing, and that she would be trapped in the marriage regardless of her wishes. These claims, which form part of the investigative file, are now subject to legal scrutiny and judicial examination. Additionally, police contend that Siya had entered into a relationship with Chetan in November 2025, even as her wedding preparations to Ketan were advancing, suggesting a conflict of affections that may have motivated the alleged crime.
Siya's parents have taken an unusual public stance on the case. Should a court find their daughter guilty of murdering Ketan, they have declared that she should receive the maximum punishment available under Indian law. In an emotionally charged statement, they further suggested that their daughter should herself be pushed from the same location at Lohagad Fort where Ketan allegedly fell—a statement that underscores the gravity of the accusations and the family's apparent acceptance of the seriousness of the matter. These comments, however, do not represent a judicial finding and remain outside the formal legal process.
Siya's mother has presented a starkly different account of events, disputing the police narrative on several key points. She contends that her daughter was reluctant to undertake trekking expeditions and that it was Ketan who initiated the outings. Moreover, Siya's mother claims that Ketan's own mother encouraged Siya to accompany her son on these trips. This counternarrative suggests that if anyone orchestrated the visits to Lohagad Fort, it was the Agarwal family rather than Siya, potentially undermining the prosecution's theory of premeditation on her part.
The professional profiles of those involved paint a picture of a tragedy intersecting middle-class aspiration and business success. Ketan served as Director and Chief Marketing Officer of Success Group, his family's real estate enterprise, positioning him within the upper echelons of the business community. Siya owned and operated a bakery business, indicating entrepreneurial ambition and economic independence. Chetan ran a dry fruit trading concern, suggesting he too occupied a respectable position within the commercial sphere. That three individuals from successful business backgrounds became embroiled in an alleged murder at a heritage fort location highlights how tragic crimes can penetrate even privileged circumstances.
The legal proceedings remain ongoing as police complete their investigative groundwork. The crime scene reconstruction represents a methodological attempt to validate or challenge the accusations against Siya and Chetan. For Malaysian and Southeast Asian observers, the case illustrates how marriage-related disputes can escalate to fatal extremes and underscores the importance of thorough forensic investigation when initial assessments prove incomplete. The reliance on circumstantial evidence, witness reconstruction, and technological traces such as mobile phone usage reflects modern investigative practices that now form the backbone of criminal inquiry across the region.
