Ketan Agarwal murder: Police to conduct Chetan Chaudhary’s gait analysis

A senior police officer said, “Chaudhary would be dressed in his original Hoodie attire and made to walk again at the same spot at Lohagad Fort, and the new video-recorded walk would be compared with that of CCTV footage recorded on June 18. Using AI tools, we will analyse the similarity, and it will help confirm his presence.”

Both accused were produced before Judicial Magistrate First Class A M Vibhute at the Vadgaon Maval court in Maval taluka of Pune district. Vipul Dushing represented Goyal, and Ram Shahane appeared as defence counsel for Chaudhary. Advocate Rajashri Virkud represented as the assistant public prosecutor. Senior Police Inspector Dinesh Tayade is the investigating officer.

The prosecution, presenting its case for police custody extension, listed 18 grounds on which further interrogation and investigation it said was necessary. These included the recovery of Agarwal’s passport, which, according to the investigation, was removed from his bag by Goyal and discarded at Khalapur Food Mall near Lonavala during their journey from Pune to Mumbai. The prosecution stated that Siya had done so because she did not wish to travel to Bali, Indonesia, with Ketan for a pre-wedding shoot.

Other key grounds cited included the need to identify locations where the two accused allegedly met to plan the conspiracy; to determine the site where they reportedly rehearsed the execution of the crime; and to conduct a joint, in-depth interrogation of both accused together. The prosecution also noted that a reconstruction of the sequence of events based on Goyal’s statement had been carried out on June 28 at Lohagad Fort, and that a similar exercise with Chaudhary was yet to be conducted.

The court was further told that digital evidence seized in the case had been sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory in Pune, but the report had not yet been received.

Interrogation of the accused based on that report remained pending. Investigators also stated that deleted digital data, which constitutes crucial evidence, was in the process of being recovered, and that the accused needed to be questioned once it was retrieved.

The prosecution additionally sought time to question newly identified witnesses, to conduct a “confrontation between the witnesses and the accused”, and to investigate whether Goyal, who had retained possession of Ketan’s mobile phone for a period after his death before handing it to his relatives, had destroyed any evidence on the device during that time.

The investigation also aims to determine whether the accused used social media or other channels to gather information on evading detection, whether they had made an earlier attempt on the deceased’s life, and whether any other individuals were involved in the alleged conspiracy. “The full-length trousers worn by Chaudhary during his journey from his residence to the crime scene also remain to be seized,” the prosecution said.

While Dushing questioned the grounds of arrest and said there is a significant difference between the reasons for arrest and the grounds of arrest of Goyal. He also said that the police have already recovered enough evidence so far and should require just one more day to do the rest of the recovery, and the police custody should not be extended beyond that.

Shahane, during his argument, said that the role of Chaudhary mentioned in the FIR is very limited, and his role is not specified by the prosecution. He added that the police have already recovered the electronic devices and his scooter from Chaudhary and are now extending the custody to recover a trouser, which could’ve been done during the initial police remand.

The prosecution on the above grounds had demanded extension of the police custody for seven more days, but the court, after hearing both sides, granted it for four days till July 3.