A Delhi court on Wednesday granted default bail to six Ukrainians, arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in March on the allegations that they trained ethnic armed groups on drone warfare in Myanmar, paving the way for the release of all seven foreign nationals accused in the case.
Special judge Prashant Sharma of Rouse Avenue Courts also discharged the six Ukrainians under sections 21 (penalty for unauthorised entry) and 23 (penalty for visa overstay and general contraventions) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act on the basis of compounding before the FRRO (Foreigners Regional Registration Office). The accused paid ₹5.5 lakhs as penalty for the immigration offences. The court further imposed a cash bond of ₹1 lakh on their release.
This comes after a Delhi court last week granted default bail to American national Matthew Aaron VanDyke, holding that the charge sheet was “piecemeal” and left the right of the accused persons to a relief intact.
Deep Dive
What were the reasons for granting default bail to the six Ukrainians in the Myanmar arms training case?
Why was the NIA's charge sheet described as 'piecemeal' by the court?
How did the recent court ruling affect the travel rights of VanDyke and the six Ukrainians?
Also Read I Agencies probe who helped US national, six Ukrainians arrested by NIA
NIA charges accused under visa violation
Default bail accrues to an accused when an investigating agency fails to complete its investigation within the period the law allows. NIA had 90 days to file its charge sheet against the seven accused and was granted a further 90 days, taking the period to 180 days.
{{/usCountry}}Default bail accrues to an accused when an investigating agency fails to complete its investigation within the period the law allows. NIA had 90 days to file its charge sheet against the seven accused and was granted a further 90 days, taking the period to 180 days.
{{/usCountry}}NIA filed it on September 8, charging them only under sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which cover illegal entry and violations of visa conditions, and leaving out the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), under which they were arrested and investigated.
“The chargesheet filed by the NIA is piecemeal as it pertains to section 21 and 23 of Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, only. In the wake of further investigation being carried out by the NIA with respect of offences under UAPA, at this stage it cannot be concluded that accused is not entitled to default bail,” the court had said in its order. Both the immigration offences are compoundable before FRRO after appropriate payment of the penalty amount.
Judge Sharma on Wednesday also modified the bail condition imposed on VanDyke, exempting him from furnishing a surety bond of ₹1 lakh after his counsel informed the court that VanDyke had no known persons in the country to stand as surety for him. The court released him on a cash bond of a similar amount.
Also Read I American citizen VanDyke seeks discharge after paying penalty for illegal entry
It imposed similar travel restrictions on the six Ukrainians, including barring them from travelling outside the city without its permission.