Matthew VanDyke, US national arrested by the NIA in March 2026 in a case involving alleged drone-warfare training linked to armed groups in Myanmar.
New Delhi: US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke has left Tihar Jail after a Delhi court allowed him to travel to the United States for one month. VanDyke was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in March in a case involving alleged links to drone-warfare training for armed groups in Myanmar.
The court on September 24 allowed VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals accused in the same case to travel to their respective countries for 30 days. The permission was granted subject to conditions, including providing their residential and contact details and cooperating with the NIA investigation whenever required. The order does not close the case against VanDyke or amount to an acquittal.
Why was VanDyke arrested?
VanDyke was arrested at Kolkata airport on March 13, while six Ukrainian nationals were arrested at airports in Delhi and Lucknow.
According to the NIA, the group had travelled to Mizoram and allegedly entered a notified or protected area without the required permit before subsequently crossing into Myanmar through unauthorised routes.
The agency alleged that the group was involved in a planned training programme related to drone warfare for ethnic armed groups in Myanmar. The alleged programme included drone operations, assembly and jamming technology.
The NIA also alleged that drone consignments and related equipment from Europe had been brought into India and were connected to the alleged activities.
These are allegations made by the investigating agency and have not been finally established by a court.
What changed in September?
A major development came on September 8, when the NIA filed its chargesheet in the case.
The chargesheet invoked Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. It did not include charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), even though the case had initially involved allegations under the anti-terror law.
The NIA, however, told the court that its investigation into the alleged UAPA offences was still continuing. The agency said that further investigation could result in a supplementary chargesheet if additional offences are established.
Therefore, the September 8 chargesheet should not be described as the NIA formally dropping or abandoning its UAPA investigation.
Why did VanDyke get default bail?
VanDyke was arrested on March 13. The investigation period under the applicable UAPA provisions had been extended to 180 days through the prescribed legal process.
That period expired on September 8.
VanDyke’s lawyers argued that because the UAPA investigation had not been completed within the applicable period, he had acquired a statutory right to default bail.
On September 18, Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma granted VanDyke default bail.
The court questioned the use of a chargesheet dealing with the immigration offences while the UAPA investigation remained incomplete. It described the chargesheet as effectively “piecemeal” and held that filing such a chargesheet could not be used to defeat an accused’s statutory right to default bail.
Default bail is a procedural safeguard. It is not an acquittal and does not mean that a court has found the allegations to be false.
What is the NIA’s position?
The NIA has maintained that its UAPA investigation remains open.
The agency told the court that further investigation was required and that a supplementary chargesheet could be filed if the evidence establishes offences under the UAPA.
The agency has also pointed to the alleged movement of drones and related equipment through India as an area requiring further investigation.
At the same time, the fact that the September 8 chargesheet did not contain UAPA offences is significant because those allegations remain under investigation rather than having been included in the chargesheet filed at that stage.
What is VanDyke’s defence saying?
VanDyke’s lawyers have challenged the NIA’s handling of the case.
The defence has pointed out that although VanDyke was initially arrested in connection with allegations under the UAPA, the chargesheet filed after the 180-day period dealt with offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act instead.
His lawyers have also sought further relief in relation to the immigration case after VanDyke reportedly paid ₹5.5 lakh to compound the relevant immigration offence before the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO).
Reports said his legal team was preparing to seek his discharge from the remaining proceedings.
However, paying the compounding amount and seeking discharge should not be described as a final court-ordered acquittal or discharge unless and until the court passes such an order.
Why was he allowed to travel to the US?
After obtaining default bail, VanDyke sought permission to travel to the United States and release of his passport.
On September 24, the Delhi court allowed him to travel to the US for one month.
The court considered his right to travel abroad alongside the requirements of the ongoing investigation. VanDyke and the other accused undertook to cooperate with the investigation whenever required.
The court also noted that the prosecution had not shown that their physical presence in India was immediately necessary for the investigation.
The permission is therefore temporary. It does not mean that VanDyke has been permanently released from the Indian proceedings.
What are the legal experts saying?
The central legal issue in the case is the distinction between default bail and the merits of the allegations.
The court’s reasoning indicates that the issue before it was whether the investigating agency could preserve an incomplete UAPA investigation by filing a chargesheet under another law after the statutory investigation period had expired.
The court’s decision to grant default bail does not determine whether the allegations made by the NIA are ultimately true or false.
The NIA, meanwhile, maintains that its investigation into the UAPA allegations is continuing and that a supplementary chargesheet remains possible.
This creates two separate legal questions: whether VanDyke was entitled to default bail because of the investigation deadline, and whether the evidence eventually establishes any UAPA offence. The September orders primarily dealt with the first question; they did not provide a final verdict on the second.
What happens next?
The NIA can continue its investigation and, if it believes the evidence establishes offences under the UAPA, can pursue a supplementary chargesheet in accordance with law.
VanDyke’s legal team can meanwhile pursue further relief in relation to the immigration proceedings.
For now, the most accurate description of the development is that VanDyke has been granted default bail and permitted to travel to the US for one month, while the NIA’s reported UAPA investigation remains open.
The case has not resulted in a judicial finding that VanDyke committed a terrorist offence, nor has the court ruled that the NIA’s allegations are false. At the same time, the absence of UAPA charges from the September 8 chargesheet means those allegations had not been included in the chargesheet filed at that stage.
The allegations against VanDyke remain allegations unless and until established before a court.
About the Author
