A Delhi court on October 23 allowed US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke to return to the United States after he appeared before the court in a case stemming from allegations that he and six Ukrainian nationals travelled from India to Myanmar and trained ethnic armed groups in drone operations and related technology. The court extended permission for all seven accused to remain outside India until February 24, 2027, with the six Ukrainians appearing through video conference citing health concerns.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) told the court that further investigation was still underway. The seven had earlier secured default bail after the agency failed to file a chargesheet invoking the relevant UAPA offences within the statutory period, although it had filed a separate chargesheet for immigration-related offences.
VanDyke Returns For Hearing
Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma heard applications from the seven foreign nationals at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court. VanDyke appeared in person after returning from the US, while the six Ukrainian accused — Hurba Petro, Taras Slyviak, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Marian Stefankiv, Maksim Honcharuk and Viktor Kaminskyi — joined the proceedings through video conference, with their lawyers citing health issues.
The NIA, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi and other counsel, told the court that further investigation was continuing and that it would update the court on developments at the next hearing. The court permitted VanDyke to return to the US and extended the overseas-stay permission for all seven until February 24, 2027. The court also kept pending VanDyke’s application seeking the release of certain articles seized during the investigation.
VanDyke Questions Proceedings
Speaking to reporters outside the court, VanDyke questioned the continuation of the case, saying, “There’s no reason for it to continue.” He said he had removed his lawyer because of financial difficulties and was now representing himself. “There is a money issue. That’s the main issue,” he said, while declining to discuss the allegations in detail. He also denied receiving assistance from the US embassy. His comments represent his position in the case and do not amount to a judicial finding on the allegations against him.
NIA Alleges Myanmar Training
The NIA arrested VanDyke and the six Ukrainians on March 13, 2026. According to the agency, the accused entered India on visas, travelled to Mizoram and subsequently crossed into Myanmar, where they allegedly trained members of ethnic armed groups in drone warfare, drone operations, assembly and jamming technology. The agency also alleged that large consignments of drones and accessories were brought from Europe to Myanmar through India.
In a subsequent court application, the NIA said it had received “credible information” about the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian and US nationals in a drone attack on a civilian aircraft in Myanmar. These remain allegations under investigation and have not been established by a court.
UAPA Probe Continues
The case took a significant legal turn in September when the NIA filed a chargesheet invoking Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, instead of the UAPA provisions under which the seven had originally been arrested.
The immigration provisions relate to offences including unlawful entry and violations of immigration requirements. However, Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi told the court that the UAPA investigation had not been closed and that the agency could file a supplementary chargesheet if further investigation established offences under the anti-terror law.
Court Calls Chargesheet Piecemeal
On September 18, the court granted VanDyke default bail, noting that the chargesheet filed by the NIA was “piecemeal” because it dealt only with the immigration offences while the UAPA investigation remained pending. The six Ukrainian accused were subsequently granted default bail as well.
The legal issue was significant because the NIA had been investigating the case under the UAPA’s extended statutory period, but the chargesheet filed within that period did not contain UAPA offences. The court held that the incomplete chargesheet could not be used to defeat the accused’s right to statutory/default bail.
A Case Still Unresolved
The latest order does not end the investigation. The NIA continues to examine allegations concerning the accused’s alleged activities in Myanmar, including the alleged transfer of drones and related equipment through India.
At the same time, the September chargesheet means the offences presently formally chargesheeted against the seven are immigration-related, while any possible UAPA offences remain subject to further investigation. The distinction is important: default bail is a statutory safeguard and is not an acquittal or a finding that the allegations are false.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The case raises difficult questions around national security, cross-border armed conflicts and the rights of foreign nationals facing serious allegations in India. Investigating agencies must have the space to pursue credible evidence, particularly where allegations involve weapons, drones and armed groups. At the same time, investigations must follow statutory timelines, courts must safeguard due process, and allegations should never be treated as convictions.
The NIA’s continuing probe and the court’s oversight will therefore be crucial in establishing what actually happened. How should authorities balance national-security concerns with the rights of accused people and the principle of a fair, timely investigation?
Also Read: ‘Funds Are Safe With Us’: SBI Says It Has Individually Notified All Affected Customers Over Cyber Incident
