Police investigating the alleged murder of Ketan Agarwal in New Delhi have uncovered fresh digital evidence that could prove critical to determining whether the accused orchestrated a deliberate cover-up. Among the materials under examination is an alleged Snapchat exchange featuring one of the two accused suspects, along with what law enforcement describes as deliberately encrypted communications sent after the alleged killing. The authenticity of these digital records remains unverified, though investigators believe they may provide crucial insight into what happened following Ketan's death and whether the accused attempted to conceal their involvement or mislead the inquiry.
At the centre of the emerging digital evidence is a purported conversation between Siya Goyal, who was allegedly engaged to the deceased, and an acquaintance. According to police accounts, Siya allegedly requested her contact send a copy of her Aadhaar identification card with a specific and unusual purpose: to book airline tickets. The alleged message, as recounted by investigators, contained the stark phrase "Send me your Aadhaar card to book tickets for a wedding that is never going to happen." The phrasing has drawn particular attention from the investigating team, who view it as potentially significant given the timing and circumstances surrounding the case.
Investigators have developed a theory about why Siya might have sought to book airline tickets during this period. They suspect the apparent wedding-related travel arrangements could have been designed to create a misleading impression of normalcy, suggesting that preparations for her marriage were proceeding as planned despite the alleged homicide. This interpretation forms part of a broader investigative hypothesis: that the accused may have engaged in a coordinated effort to misdirect attention away from themselves and their alleged actions. By maintaining the façade of ongoing wedding plans, the theory goes, they hoped to avoid raising suspicion about what had actually occurred. However, the evidentiary value and authenticity of these alleged messages have not yet been formally established by the courts.
Beyond the Snapchat conversation, law enforcement has identified what appears to be another layer of suspicious communication. Forensic analysis of deleted data recovered from mobile phones allegedly belonging to both Siya Goyal and her co-accused, Chetan Chaudhary, has surfaced evidence of what police describe as coded exchanges occurring after Ketan Agarwal's death. These messages, according to investigators, appear deliberately obfuscated—using language or symbols designed to mask their true meaning from outsiders. Police believe these encrypted communications were intended to allow the accused to discuss details of their alleged involvement without being understood by those monitoring their movements or reviewing their correspondence.
The case itself rests on serious allegations. Siya Goyal, who was engaged to marry Ketan Agarwal, and Chetan Chaudhary are both accused of murdering him before attempting to destroy physical evidence and obstruct the investigation. This combination of charges—suggesting premeditation, conspiracy, and deliberate obstruction—paints a picture of an alleged crime that extended well beyond the moment of the alleged killing. The investigation team has apparently built a theory suggesting coordinated planning and execution, with the subsequent communications representing attempts to maintain their cover.
Investigating Officer Manoj Pawar presented details to the court showing the investigative steps already undertaken. A panchnama, or formal inspection record, was conducted at a location where Siya was suspected of destroying Ketan's passport, and her clothing has been seized as forensic evidence. Additionally, examination of Siya's secondary mobile device revealed further exchanges that investigators characterise as coded in nature. These details were presented during a custody hearing as the investigating team sought additional time to interrogate both accused individuals together and analyse the communications in question.
The court, however, declined to grant the police's request for three additional days of custodial interrogation, instead remanding both Siya Goyal and Chetan Chaudhary to 14 days of judicial custody. The investigating officer had argued that extended custodial interrogation was necessary to accomplish several critical investigative objectives: to question the two accused in each other's presence, to attempt decoding of the alleged conversations, to establish motive for the alleged crime, and to determine each individual's specific role in what occurred. Despite these arguments, the judicial authority determined that 14 days of judicial custody was the appropriate measure.
During the same hearing, the question of conducting a narco analysis on the accused emerged as a point of contention. This investigative technique, which involves chemical administration and questioning, remains controversial and requires explicit consent from the subject. The court made clear that such testing could not proceed without voluntary agreement from both accused individuals. When both Siya Goyal and Chetan Chaudhary declined to submit to the procedure, the court refused to grant permission. Notably, the prosecution did not push strongly for this measure at this stage of the investigation, suggesting they may not view it as immediately essential to their case development.
For Malaysian readers and regional observers, this case offers instructive lessons in how modern criminal investigations navigate digital evidence and the particular challenges posed by encrypted or coded communications. The reliance on Snapchat conversations, deleted mobile data, and allegedly obfuscated messaging illustrates how contemporary police work increasingly hinges on technical analysis of digital trails. The verification challenges highlighted here—determining authenticity, establishing evidentiary value, and ensuring admissibility—reflect broader questions about digital evidence that courts across Southeast Asia are grappling with as criminal conduct increasingly shifts into digital spaces.
The investigation also underscores the tension between investigative efficiency and the rights of the accused. The police sought extended custodial time and invasive investigative techniques, both of which were constrained by judicial oversight. This reflects a legal system attempting to balance the need to solve serious crimes against the protection of individual rights, a balance that becomes increasingly complex when the alleged conspiracy includes attempts to obstruct investigation itself. As the case continues to develop, the interpretation of these digital communications and their ultimate admissibility in court will likely shape how Indian law enforcement approaches similar investigations moving forward.
