The arrest of Dinesh Sunar in the theft case at BJP councillor Amrita Singh’s home in Dehradun has become disputed, with his family alleging that police took him into custody 6 days before the date officially claimed.

Police say Sunar was arrested in Dehradun on October 7 after investigators examined CCTV footage and gathered sufficient evidence. His brother, Mohan Sunar, says he was detained in Nainital on the morning of October one and brought to Dehradun that night.

The theft at Singh’s home reportedly took place during the night of September 28-29. Sunar is accused in the case, but the allegations about his detention and his role remain contested.

Family and travellers challenge arrest timeline

Mohan Sunar says his brother had travelled to Nainital with visitors who had hired his taxi for a trip connected with Kainchi Dham. According to the family, police took Sunar and the travellers to Tallital police station on October 1.

A woman who travelled in Sunar’s vehicle said the group reached near the Nainital parking area at about 8:30 AM AM. She said 2 or 3 people who identified themselves as police officers took them to the station after some members of the group went to look at rooms at Vinayak Hotel near the lake.

The woman said the travellers were kept at the police station for about 10 to 12 hours. They were later allowed to leave, while Sunar was taken away by the police, according to her account. The source material does not include an official explanation for why he was stopped or what action was taken at that time.

Mohan Sunar says he began searching for his brother from October 2 and contacted several police stations. He claims the family was initially not told that Dinesh was in police custody, prompting them to file a missing-person complaint with the Dehradun SSP.

The family also alleges that Sunar was kept at Indira Nagar police outafter being brought to Dehradun. Mohan says he had reached Dehradun by about 8:00 PM on October one and that relatives were not allowed to meet his brother.

Travel operator makes further allegations

A travel operator associated with Sunar said he delivered food and clothes to him for about 3 days after learning that he was at the police out. The operator, who did not want to be identified, claimed Sunar remained under police supervision before the stated arrest date.

The operator further alleged that an investigating officer demanded about ₹3 lakh for Sunar’s release. Mohan Sunar separately claimed that a call was made on the night of October 5 seeking ₹3 lakh to release his brother. These allegations have not been established in the supplied material, and no independent investigation finding is provided.

The operator also disputed the police claim that ₹27,500 was recovered from Sunar. He said Sunar operated a commercial taxi, received some passenger payments online and carried 2 phones for personal and business use.

Dispute over Sunar’s alleged role

Mohan Sunar says a man named Aditya regularly provided taxi bookings to his brother. Under one such booking, Sunar travelled from Delhi to Haridwar, where Aditya and another man joined the vehicle near Har Ki Pauri before travelling to Dehradun.

According to the family’s account, the 2 men later asked Sunar to drive them towards Delhi. They got out in Ghazipur after paying ₹3,000 in cash and promising the remaining amount later. The travel operator said their conversation in Nepali and an exchange of watches appeared suspicious, but Sunar did not know about any alleged theft plan.

The operator claims Sunar was only providing transport and had also helped police with information connected to Aditya. These claims describe the family’s and operator’s position; they do not determine Sunar’s legal responsibility in the theft case.

Police reject the detention allegation

SP City Shekhar Chandra Suyal rejected the family’s allegations. He said the case involved a serious incident and that Sunar was arrested only after a detailed investigation and examination of CCTV footage.

Suyal maintained that police had sufficient evidence against the accused and that the arrest took place in Dehradun on October 7. a separate official response to the travellers’ account, the missing-person complaint, the alleged payment demand or the claimed October one detention is not yet available.

The family has sought intervention from the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister, asking for an impartial inquiry. The central unresolved issue is whether Sunar was detained on October one in Nainital or formally arrested in Dehradun on October 7.

Conclusion

The case currently contains conflicting accounts about Dinesh Sunar’s custody timeline and alleged role. Police stand by the October 7 Dehradun arrest, while his family, travellers and a travel operator seek clarification through an independent examination of the competing claims.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What case is Dinesh Sunar accused in?

He is accused in the theft case involving BJP councillor Amrita Singh’s home in Dehradun during the night of September 28-29.

Q. When does police say Sunar was arrested?

SP City Shekhar Chandra Suyal says Sunar was arrested in Dehradun on October 7.

Q. What does Sunar’s family allege?

His family alleges that police detained him in Nainital on October one and brought him to Dehradun that night.

Q. What did the travellers say?

one traveller said police took the group to Tallital police station on October 1, kept them there for about 10 to 12 hours and later took Sunar away.

Q. Where does the family say Sunar was kept?

The family says he was kept at Dehradun’s Indira Nagar police outafter being brought from Nainital.

Q. Did the family file a complaint?

Mohan Sunar says the family filed a missing-person complaint with the Dehradun SSP after initially receiving no information about his whereabouts.

Q. What does the travel operator allege?

The operator alleges that an investigating officer demanded about ₹3 lakh for Sunar’s release and disputes the claimed recovery of ₹27,500.

Q. What is the police response?

Police reject the detention allegation and say CCTV examination and the investigation provided sufficient evidence for the October 7 arrest.