Delhi Court: Allows Myanmar Terror Accused Travel to Home Countries

• A Delhi court permitted a US national and six Ukrainian individuals, previously granted default bail, to travel home for one month.
• The seven individuals were arrested by the NIA in March 2026 on charges under Section 18 of the UAPA.
• Allegations included entering Mizoram without permits, illegally crossing into Myanmar, and providing drone training to ethnic armed groups.
• Default bail was granted on September 18 because the NIA failed to file a timely chargesheet under the UAPA.
• Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma of the Rouse Avenue Court issued the travel order to meet their families.

This Rouse Avenue Court order, allowing Matthew Aaron VanDyke and his co-accused to travel internationally despite facing serious initial allegations, sets a notable precedent.

A Delhi court recently granted permission for a United States national and six Ukrainian citizens, who are accused in a terror-related case, to travel to their respective home countries for a period of one month. The purpose of this travel is to allow them to reunite with their families. This order was issued on a Thursday by Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma, presiding over the Rouse Avenue Court, following the earlier grant of default bail to all seven individuals.

The decision to allow international travel comes after these individuals had secured default bail on September 18. The court had previously determined that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) failed to complete its investigation within the stipulated timeframe and consequently did not file a chargesheet under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). This procedural lapse was the basis for their release on default bail, paving the way for the subsequent travel authorization.

The case against the seven individuals centers on serious allegations of conspiracy to carry out terrorist activities. The US national, identified as Matthew Aaron VanDyke, along with Ukrainian nationals Hurba Petro, Slyviak Taras, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Stefankiv Marian, Honcharuk Maksim, and Kaminskyi Viktor, were arrested by the NIA in March 2026. An FIR was initially registered against them under Section 18 of the UAPA.

The accusations detail that the group allegedly entered India's Mizoram state without valid permits before illegally crossing into Myanmar. Once in Myanmar, they are accused of providing drone-warfare training to various ethnic armed groups engaged in conflict with the Myanmar military government. These allegations form the core of the NIA's terror training case.

The granting of default bail to the accused highlights critical procedural timelines mandated under Indian law, particularly the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The court's decision on September 18 stemmed directly from the NIA's failure to file a comprehensive chargesheet under the UAPA within the statutory period. This failure meant that the accused were entitled to default bail, a provision designed to protect an individual's liberty when investigations are not concluded promptly.

While the case was initially registered under Section 18 of the UAPA, the first chargesheet filed by the NIA reportedly only referenced violations of provisions under the Immigration and Foreigners Act. This discrepancy underscores the investigative agency's inability to substantiate the more severe UAPA charges within the legally prescribed timeframe, ultimately leading to the court's decision to grant default bail in India.

This Rouse Avenue Court order, allowing Matthew Aaron VanDyke and his co-accused to travel internationally despite facing serious initial allegations, sets a notable precedent. It reinforces the principle that even in grave cases like the NIA terror training case, strict adherence to procedural timelines for chargesheet filing under UAPA is paramount. When these timelines are not met, default bail becomes a right, and subsequent restrictions on liberty, such as international travel bans, may be lifted.

The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in upholding due process, even for individuals accused of severe offenses. For legal practitioners, this case serves as an important reminder of the critical importance of monitoring investigative progress and chargesheet filing deadlines, particularly in cases involving the UAPA, as delays can significantly alter the trajectory of a case and the rights of the accused.

This ruling highlights the strict procedural timelines for chargesheet filing under UAPA, emphasizing that investigative delays can lead to default bail. It also sets a precedent for courts allowing international travel for accused individuals granted default bail in serious cases, which lawyers should note for client advice.

Source: Original reporting via Indian legal news outlets