The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has filed a chargesheet against American citizen Matthew Aaron Van Dyke and six Ukrainian nationals in an immigration-related case, but the filing does not mark the end of the agency’s investigation under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The development comes as the statutory 180-day custody period was set to expire on September 8, putting the agency under a legal deadline to file its chargesheet in the case.
The seven accused were arrested on March 13, 2026, at airports in Kolkata, Delhi and Lucknow. The case had originally been registered under Section 18 of the UAPA and other provisions following allegations that the group illegally entered Myanmar and provided training to ethnic armed groups in drone warfare.
In its latest filing, however, the NIA has invoked Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, accusing the seven of illegal entry, stay and movement in India. The distinction is important: the present chargesheet deals with alleged immigration violations, while the investigation into possible offences under the anti-terror law remains underway.
According to investigators, the accused entered India on tourist visas in December 2025 and travelled from Guwahati towards Mizoram without obtaining the required Protected Area Permit. They allegedly crossed into Myanmar, where they are accused of providing training related to drone operations, including drone assembly and jamming techniques.
The agency further alleges that the group subsequently returned to India through an unauthorised route in March. Investigators are also examining alleged connections between certain Myanmar-based armed groups and insurgent organisations operating in India's north-eastern region.
The timing of the chargesheet is central to understanding the case.
Under the applicable UAPA provisions, investigators can receive an extended period to complete their probe before the accused can claim default bail. With the 180-day period approaching its September 8 deadline, filing the immigration chargesheet allowed the prosecution to place its findings before the court within the statutory framework.
But the absence of UAPA charges from the present chargesheet does not automatically mean that the terror investigation has been abandoned.
The NIA has specifically recorded that its investigation under the UAPA is continuing. If investigators uncover further evidence establishing additional offences, the agency can undertake further investigation and submit a supplementary chargesheet.
That legal distinction is crucial. A chargesheet is not necessarily the final word on every aspect of a criminal investigation.
The case therefore presents a somewhat unusual picture: the NIA has moved forward with charges under immigration law while keeping the more serious UAPA investigation alive.
Van Dyke's detention has also attracted consular attention from the United States. American diplomats have raised the matter with Indian authorities.
Such intervention, by itself, does not indicate diplomatic pressure over the substance of the criminal case. Consular authorities routinely seek access to their nationals detained or arrested abroad and may provide information about legal assistance and due process.
The court has listed the matter for October 1. The immigration case will now proceed on the offences included in the chargesheet, while the NIA continues its investigation into the alleged UAPA-related activities.
Leave Your Comment