Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Oct 23: US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke appeared before the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi on Friday after returning from the United States, where he had travelled to meet his family with the court’s permission in connection with the Myanmar training camp case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The court has extended permission for six Ukrainian nationals, who are co-accused in the case, to remain outside India until the next hearing on February 24, 2027. It has also permitted VanDyke to travel to the United States.
The latest development follows a September 2026 order allowing all seven accused to travel to their respective countries for a month, subject to conditions. VanDyke was directed to return to India after the permitted period and appear before the court, while the six Ukrainian nationals were allowed to travel to Ukraine under similar conditions.
The seven accused were granted default bail after the NIA filed a chargesheet invoking provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, without including charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court also directed them to cooperate with the investigation whenever required.
The NIA arrested VanDyke and the six Ukrainian nationals on March 13, 2026, over allegations that they entered Mizoram without the required travel documents and crossed into Myanmar, where they allegedly trained members of ethnic armed groups.
According to the agency, the accused provided training in drone warfare, drone operations, assembly and jamming technology to armed groups, including the Chin National Front and the Kachin Independence Army. These groups have been involved in fighting Myanmar’s military junta. The allegations have not been established as findings of guilt.
In its chargesheet filed in September, the NIA invoked Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, but did not include provisions of the UAPA. The agency informed the court that its investigation into possible offences under the anti-terror law was continuing and that a supplementary chargesheet could be filed if further investigation established an offence.
The court granted default bail after the statutory period for filing the chargesheet under the UAPA expired without the relevant charges being included. The investigation remains ongoing despite the relief granted to the accused.