A Delhi court on Friday allowed US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke to return to the United States and remain there until February 24 in a case involving allegations of drone-warfare training for armed groups in Myanmar.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested VanDyke in March 2026 along with six Ukrainian nationals. The seven foreign nationals are accused of entering Myanmar through India and allegedly providing technical training to ethnic armed groups fighting the country’s military junta.
The latest order follows a series of court proceedings in September, when the accused secured default bail after the agency filed its chargesheet.
Court Grants VanDyke Permission To Stay In US
VanDyke was among seven foreign nationals arrested in March in connection with the alleged training programme. The court had previously allowed him and the six Ukrainian nationals to travel to their respective countries for a month to meet their families, subject to conditions requiring them to return to India and cooperate with the investigation.
An earlier order had directed VanDyke to appear before the court within 72 hours of returning to India, according to a report by Hindustan Times citing a person familiar with the matter.
The latest permission allows him to remain in the US until February 24.
ALSO READ: Congress Seeks 200 Seats From SP For 2027 UP Polls? Priyanka Gandhi Leads Fresh Push
What Is The NIA Case Against The Seven Foreign Nationals?
The NIA arrested VanDyke on March 13, 2026. The six Ukrainian nationals arrested in the same case were identified as Petro Hurba, Taras Slyviak, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Marian Stefankiw, Maksim Honcharuk and Viktor Kaminskyi. They were arrested at airports in Delhi and Lucknow.
According to the NIA, the accused entered India on tourist visas and travelled to the Northeast without obtaining the required permits. The agency alleged that they subsequently crossed into Myanmar from Mizoram and participated in a training programme for ethnic armed groups.
The alleged training involved drone operations, assembly techniques and jamming technology. The agency also alleged that the case was connected to a broader conspiracy involving armed groups operating in the region.
The seven were initially booked under stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). However, the NIA did not invoke UAPA offences in its first chargesheet, instead charging them under the Immigration and Foreigners Act.
Why The Court Granted Default Bail
The chargesheet was filed on September 8, the day the 180-day period for completing the investigation expired. The NIA invoked provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, relating to unauthorised entry and other immigration violations, while maintaining that its investigation into alleged UAPA offences was continuing.
VanDyke sought default bail, arguing that the agency had not completed its investigation into the alleged offences under the anti-terror law within the prescribed period.
On September 18, a special NIA court granted him default bail. It observed that the chargesheet was “piecemeal” because it addressed immigration offences while the investigation into the alleged UAPA offences remained pending.
The court held that an incomplete chargesheet could not be used to deny an accused the statutory right to default bail when the applicable deadline had expired.
What Is Default Bail?
Default bail is a statutory safeguard available when an investigating agency fails to file the required chargesheet within the legally prescribed period, provided the accused fulfils the conditions laid down by law.
It differs from regular bail, which is considered on other legal grounds. In VanDyke’s case, the court granted default bail after the investigation deadline expired and the agency’s chargesheet did not include the alleged UAPA offences.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: abplive.com
