Delhi Court Grants Bail to Matthew VanDyke
A Delhi court has granted default bail to American national Matthew VanDyke, permitting him to travel to the United States for one month. VanDyke was released from Tihar Jail following the ruling by Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma on September 18.
The decision comes after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) filed a chargesheet against VanDyke on September 8, invoking Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. The agency did not invoke provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in this filing.
Judge Sharma held that the investigating agency could not circumvent the statutory framework by filing an incomplete chargesheet to prevent the accused from claiming default bail. The court noted that the chargesheet dealt with immigration offences while the UAPA investigation remained pending.
The judge further observed that the NIA’s chargesheet was effectively "piecemeal." This determination was based on the fact that the 180-day statutory period for completing the investigation under the relevant UAPA framework had expired before the agency filed its current documentation.
Allegations of Drone Links and Geopolitical Concerns
VanDyke was originally arrested by the NIA on March 13, 2026, along with six Ukrainian nationals. The agency’s investigation concerned alleged links with ethnic armed groups operating in Myanmar and alleged training involving drone warfare.
According to reports cited by The Sunday Guardian, the NIA told the court that several consignments of drones from Europe had allegedly been delivered to individuals and groups in Mizoram. These allegations formed the basis of the initial geopolitical dimension of the case.
Savio Rodrigues, writing for The Sunday Guardian, argued that India should have taken a tougher investigative position regarding VanDyke. Rodrigues stated that India should have recognized from the beginning that the case involved significant geopolitical dimensions requiring a commensurate investigative strategy.
Rodrigues noted that he predicted 48 hours after VanDyke’s arrest that international geopolitical factors would influence the outcome. He asserted that while the court’s reasoning must be respected, India’s investigative strategy is subject to question.
The opinion piece emphasized that the concern was not about denying due process to an accused person, but rather whether India adequately addressed a case involving alleged links to armed groups and drone warfare in Myanmar’s conflict theatre. Rodrigues concluded that India should not have let VanDyke leave under the circumstances described.