A Delhi court has allowed US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian co-accused to travel to their home countries for one month, with orders to return to India and remain available to the NIA
The NIA’s first chargesheet did not invoke UAPA provisions, instead charging the seven under the Immigration and Foreigners Act while telling the court that its UAPA investigation was continuing
The travel permission followed default bail granted after the investigation crossed the statutory period without a complete UAPA chargesheet, but the court’s order does not amount to a finding on the merits of the allegations concerning alleged training and links to armed groups in Myanmar
Why Matthew VanDyke’s Travel To The US Has Sparked Controversy In India
A Delhi court has allowed US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian co-accused to travel abroad for a month, even as the NIA’s investigation into alleged drone-warfare training in Myanmar remains open.
Summary
A Delhi court has allowed US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke to travel to the United States for one month while the National Investigation Agency’s investigation into an alleged Myanmar training camp case continues.
The Rouse Avenue court also allowed six Ukrainian nationals facing the same case to travel to Ukraine. The court ordered all seven to return to India after one month, provide their residential and contact details and remain available to the NIA for questioning when required. The court also ordered the release of their passports.
The decision has drawn political criticism because the NIA had originally alleged that VanDyke and the other accused were involved in activities connected to armed groups in Myanmar, including drone warfare and related technology.
According to the NIA’s case, the training was linked to Myanmar-based ethnic armed groups. The agency also alleged that drones and components were transported through India and that the wider activity raised national-security concerns.
VanDyke describes himself as the founder of Sons of Liberty International, an organisation involved in military advising and training. He has also described himself as a documentary filmmaker, journalist and war correspondent.
Why Was He Granted Bail?
The controversy intensified after the NIA filed a chargesheet without invoking provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The agency had initially booked the accused under Section 18 of the UAPA, which concerns conspiracy for terrorist activities. But the chargesheet filed earlier this month invoked Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. The NIA said its UAPA investigation remained open and that a supplementary chargesheet could be filed if further investigation established an offence under the law.
Advertisement
VanDyke subsequently received default bail after the court found that the NIA had not filed a complete UAPA chargesheet within the statutory period. The court said the investigation could continue but that the agency could not use an incomplete chargesheet to prevent him from receiving default bail.
The immigration-related proceedings were also compounded.
Why The Exit Has Triggered Criticism
The latest controversy centres on the fact that VanDyke has now been permitted to leave India while the broader investigation remains open.
The court, however, imposed conditions requiring VanDyke and the six Ukrainian accused to return after one month and cooperate with the NIA, including through video calls or physical appearance when required.
Advertisement
The case therefore remains under investigation, while the legal position has shifted significantly from the original UAPA allegations to a case in which the accused have default bail and temporary permission to travel abroad.
Published At:
Tags