The investigation into the alleged murder of Ketan Agarwal in New Delhi has taken a new turn with the emergence of digital evidence, as police examine purported Snapchat exchanges and what they characterise as cryptic communications between two suspects. Authorities are scrutinising the authenticity and investigative value of these digital records as they attempt to establish a timeline of events following the victim's death and determine whether the accused engaged in deliberate attempts to obstruct the inquiry or provide false leads to investigators.
Central to the police's evolving case is an alleged Snapchat conversation involving accused Siya Goyal and an acquaintance. According to investigators, Goyal reportedly requested her contact to provide a copy of an Aadhaar card ostensibly to facilitate flight bookings. The phrasing of the alleged message—"Send me your Aadhaar card to book tickets for a wedding that is never going to happen"—has caught investigators' attention, particularly given that Goyal was reportedly engaged to the deceased Ketan Agarwal. Police suspect this exchange may have formed part of a calculated strategy to maintain an outward appearance of normal wedding preparations whilst concealing involvement in a serious crime. Such a tactic, investigators theorise, could have been designed to misdirect both family members and law enforcement from suspecting foul play.
Forensic examination of mobile phone data, including deleted content recovered from Goyal's second device, has revealed what authorities describe as coded exchanges between Goyal and co-accused Chetan Chaudhary. The police believe these communications were deliberately obscured and transmitted using language or references designed to mask incriminating details about the alleged conspiracy. Decoding these messages has become a central investigative priority, as officials believe they may yield crucial information about planning, execution, and subsequent cover-up efforts.
Police have alleged that Siya Goyal, who was engaged to Ketan Agarwal, and Chetan Chaudhary conspired to commit murder, and subsequently attempted to destroy evidence whilst deliberately furnishing false information to investigators. Additional investigative steps have included a panchnama—a formal investigative protocol—conducted at a location where Siya was suspected of destroying Ketan's passport. Clothing seized from the accused is undergoing examination. These material elements, combined with digital evidence, form the foundation of the prosecution's case at this stage of the investigation.
The investigation hit a procedural hurdle when a local court rejected the police's request for an extended custodial period. Investigators had sought three additional days of interrogation to question both accused together, attempt to interpret the coded messages, establish potential motives, and clarify the individual roles each accused may have played in the alleged crime. The investigating officer, Manoj Pawar, presented these arguments to the bench, emphasising that conjoint questioning of the two suspects was essential for clarifying contradictions and testing the credibility of their statements. However, the court deemed the initial 14-day judicial custody period sufficient at this juncture and declined the extension.
A significant forensic tool sought by investigators—narco analysis, often referred to as "truth serum" testing in popular discourse—became a point of contention during the court hearing. This technique involves administering sodium pentothal or similar drugs to reduce conscious resistance and theoretically facilitate more candid responses during interrogation. However, Indian law strictly circumscribes the use of such procedures, requiring explicit written consent from the subject. Since both Siya Goyal and Chetan Chaudhary declined to undergo the procedure, the court appropriately refused permission. Notably, the prosecution itself indicated that it did not consider narco analysis essential at the current investigative stage, suggesting confidence in alternative avenues of inquiry.
The denial of extended custody and restricted forensic methods place greater pressure on investigators to extract maximum value from available digital and physical evidence. The Snapchat communications, though not yet authenticated, represent a potentially rich source of investigative leads. Modern criminal investigations increasingly hinge on digital footprints—metadata, message timestamps, deleted content recovery, and pattern analysis—rather than confessions obtained under custodial pressure. Indian forensic authorities possess sophisticated capabilities to reconstruct deleted messages, establish communication timelines, and correlate digital activity with alleged physical movements.
For Malaysian and Southeast Asian observers, this case underscores the evolving nature of criminal investigation in the digital age. Messaging applications with disappearing content features, once considered secure, now figure prominently in criminal prosecutions. The assumption that ephemeral communications leave no trace has proven dangerously mistaken for many accused persons across the region. Digital evidence that users believed permanently deleted can be recovered through forensic techniques, and seemingly innocuous phrasing may acquire incriminating significance when interpreted in context.
The case also illustrates the tension between investigative efficiency and legal protections for the accused. While extended custodial interrogation might accelerate the investigation, courts across South Asia have increasingly recognised that confessions extracted under pressure, without legal representation, frequently prove unreliable and violate fundamental rights. The Indian court's decision reflects a judicial philosophy that emphasises rigorous adherence to procedural safeguards even in serious criminal matters. This approach, though occasionally frustrating for law enforcement, ultimately strengthens the integrity of the justice system by ensuring convictions rest on solid evidence rather than coerced admissions.
The investigation remains active, with authorities pursuing multiple investigative angles. Forensic analysis of digital devices continues, and police are evidently pursuing corroborating evidence to substantiate their theories regarding the alleged conspiracy and subsequent concealment efforts. The authenticity of the Snapchat conversation has not yet been conclusively established, remaining a critical evidentiary hurdle that must be overcome before such material can be presented in court proceedings. As the investigation progresses, the fate of both accused will depend substantially on whether digital evidence can be authenticated, contextualised, and presented to establish criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt.
