Siya Goyal Case: Legal Battle Over Representation Deepens as Competing Lawyers Clash, ₹10 Crore Notice Sent
Fresh controversy erupts in the Lohagad Fort murder case after two advocates claim to represent accused Siya Goyal, prompting a ₹10 crore defamation notice against her brother.
A new legal controversy has emerged in the high-profile Lohagad Fort murder case, with confusion over who is officially representing the main accused, Siya Goyal. The dispute has now escalated into a separate legal battle after Advocate Ashutosh Srivastava issued a ₹10 crore legal notice to Siya’s brother, Sahil Goyal, alleging defamation over statements questioning his authority to appear on her behalf.
The murder case itself relates to the death of Pune-based realtor Ketan Agarwal, who allegedly died after being pushed from Lohagad Fort near Lonavala on June 18. Police have arrested Siya Goyal and co-accused Chetan Chaudhary, alleging that the killing was the result of a pre-planned conspiracy. Both accused remain under investigation, with remand proceedings continuing before the magistrate court in Wadgaon Maval, Pune.
The latest controversy centres on legal representation. Advocate Ashutosh Srivastava claims that Siya Goyal, who is an adult, personally executed vakalatnamas on June 25 authorising him and his legal team to represent her before both the magistrate court and the Bombay High Court. According to Srivastava, these documents have already been accepted and placed on the court record.
However, another lawyer, Advocate Vipul Dushing, has asserted that he was engaged by Siya Goyal’s family to conduct her defence. He has reportedly maintained that during the June 29 remand hearing, Siya informed the magistrate that Dushing alone had been appointed to represent her, directly contradicting Srivastava’s claims.
The dispute intensified after Sahil Goyal spoke to the media, stating that Advocate Ashutosh Srivastava had never been engaged by the family and was not authorised to represent his sister. Those remarks prompted Srivastava to issue a ₹10 crore legal notice, alleging that the public statement was false, misleading and damaging to his professional reputation.
In public statements, Srivastava has insisted that the family is not legally required to appoint counsel for an adult accused. He argues that Siya herself has the legal right to choose her advocate and that her signed authorisation is sufficient. He has also stated that neither he nor his team has had any communication with Sahil Goyal and has demanded a public apology and clarification.
The competing claims have created an unusual situation in an already sensitive criminal case. While the dispute concerns legal representation rather than the merits of the murder allegations, it may require clarification before the courts if rival claims continue during future proceedings. Ultimately, the court record and the accused’s own instructions will determine who is authorised to act as counsel.
Meanwhile, the criminal investigation into Ketan Agarwal’s death continues. Police are examining digital evidence, CCTV footage, forensic material and other investigative leads while both accused remain in custody. Authorities have also been pursuing additional evidence, including the victim’s missing passport and other aspects of the alleged conspiracy.
The legal representation dispute is therefore unfolding alongside the ongoing murder investigation, adding another layer of courtroom complexity to one of Maharashtra’s most closely watched criminal cases. The courts are expected to address any procedural issues relating to representation as the prosecution moves forward.
