From Our Special Correspondent
New Delhi: A special court dealing with National Investigation Agency (NIA) matters at the Rouse Avenue Courts in New Delhi, on 24 September 2026, permitted United States national Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals — Hurba Petro, Taras Slyviak, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Marian Stefankiv, Maksim Honcharuk and Viktor Kaminskyi — to travel to their respective countries for one month, subject to conditions fixed by the court.
The court directed that their passports be released. The one-month period is to be reckoned from the date each person boards a flight. They have been directed to return to India after that period, to inform the court of their return within 72 hours, to furnish residential addresses, working telephone numbers and email identities, and to join investigation through video conferencing, or appear in person, as and when required by the investigating agency.
Background of the case as recorded in public reports
According to official and contemporaneous reports, the seven foreign nationals were arrested on 13 March 2026. VanDyke was arrested at Kolkata airport. Three of the Ukrainian nationals were arrested at Lucknow airport and three at Delhi airport.
The case was initially registered, among other provisions, under Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The NIA’s case, as publicly reported, was that the accused had entered India on tourist visas in December 2025, travelled to Mizoram without the required Protected Area Permit, crossed into Myanmar, and were associated with training activities involving drone warfare for ethnic armed groups operating in Myanmar. Those allegations remain unadjudicated. They are not findings of the court.
Chargesheet filed on 8 September 2026
On 8 September 2026, the NIA filed a chargesheet. As reported, that chargesheet invoked Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, relating to unauthorised entry and contravention of visa conditions. Provisions of the UAPA under which the accused had been arrested were not included in that chargesheet.
Public reports attributed to the agency have stated that the investigation then available did not yield conclusive material to show that the alleged acts were directed against India’s national security or against Indian citizens, and that the material then placed related primarily to cross-border movement and activities concerning groups in Myanmar. The NIA has, according to the same reports, stated that investigation in respect of UAPA offences is continuing and that a supplementary chargesheet may be filed if further material so warrants. Those statements are the agency’s position. They are not judicial conclusions.
Default bail and compounding of immigration offences
Under the applicable criminal procedure, an accused in custody is entitled to default bail if a complete chargesheet in respect of the offence justifying continued detention is not filed within the prescribed period. Reports state that the court treated the 8 September chargesheet as not constituting a complete chargesheet qua the UAPA allegations then under investigation.
VanDyke was granted default bail on 18 September 2026. The six Ukrainian nationals were granted default bail on 23 September 2026, on personal bonds as directed by the court. Default bail is a statutory consequence of non-filing of a complete chargesheet within time. It is not an acquittal and does not decide the merits of any pending investigation.
Reports further state that the Foreigners Regional Registration Office compounded the offences under Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, on payment of the prescribed penalty of ₹5.5 lakh by each of the seven persons. The court thereafter discharged them in respect of those immigration offences. Discharge on a compounded immigration offence does not dispose of any separate investigation that the NIA may still be conducting under the UAPA.
Permission to travel
Applications were thereafter moved for release of passports and for permission to travel abroad to meet family members. As reported, the NIA did not contend before the court that the immediate physical presence of the accused in India was required to complete the investigation then pending. The court granted permission for one month, with the conditions set out above, and recorded that investigation under the UAPA was stated to be continuing.
The court also observed, according to published accounts of the order, that the right to travel abroad is an incident of personal liberty and that a balance had to be struck with the needs of investigation. The accused remain bound by the conditions of bail and by the direction to return.
Present legal position
As on the date of the travel order:
• the seven persons have been granted default bail;
• they have been discharged in respect of the immigration offences after compounding before the FRRO;
• they have been permitted to leave India for one month on conditions;
• the NIA has publicly maintained that the UAPA investigation is not closed; and
• no court has recorded a conviction, nor has any court recorded a finding that the UAPA allegations are proved or disproved.
Any description of the accused as “spies”, “mercenaries”, “terrorists”, or persons who have been “let off” a terror case would be inaccurate on the judicial record as it presently stands. The only offences placed in the first chargesheet were immigration offences, which have been compounded. The anti-terror investigation, according to the agency, remains open. Guilt or innocence on those allegations is a matter for future investigation and, if a chargesheet is filed, for trial.
________________________________________
Disclaimer: This is a report of publicly available court proceedings and agency statements. Allegations remain unproved. Default bail and travel permission are not an acquittal. Official court orders prevail.