Back
Delhi Court Allows US and Ukrainian Nationals in Myanmar Drone Case to Travel Home
In a significant ruling that underscores the constitutional right to freedom of movement, a Delhi court has permitted seven foreign nationals—six Ukrainians and one American—to return to their home countries for one month, despite their involvement in a high-profile
probe into an alleged drone-warfare training camp linked to ethnic armed groups in Myanmar. Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma of the
passed the order on
, noting that
"the
is an extension of
under
."
The accused—Matthew Aaron Van Dyke (US national) and Ukrainians Hurba Petro, Slyviak Taras, Ivan Sukmanovsky, Stefankiv Marian, Honcharuk Maksim, and Kaminskyi Viktor—were arrested in after the NIA conducted raids at multiple airports. They were initially booked under the stringent for allegedly entering India on tourist visas, traveling to the northeastern state of Mizoram without requisite permits, and then crossing into Myanmar to train ethnic militias in drone warfare, operations, assembly, and jamming technology. The NIA also alleged their involvement in a drone attack on a passenger aircraft at Myitkyina airport in Kachin state, Myanmar, which caused structural damage but no casualties.
However, the case took a dramatic turn when the NIA filed its first on without invoking UAPA provisions. Instead, the accused were charged under —offences that are before the . The FRRO subsequently imposed a fine of Rs 5.5 lakh on each of them on , leading to their discharge under those provisions. The NIA clarified that its investigation into possible UAPA offences—including criminal conspiracy and terror funding—remained ongoing and that a could be filed if evidence emerged.
and the Right to Travel
The court had earlier granted to the seven accused because the NIA failed to complete its investigation and file a UAPA within the statutory period. Van Dyke received on , while the six Ukrainians were granted the same on . This bail was predicated on the agency's inability to demonstrate that further custody was necessary for the probe.
When the accused subsequently sought permission to travel abroad—pleading that they had not seen their families for nearly 10 months—the NIA did not oppose the request but did not elaborate on whether their physical presence in India would be required imminently. The court, in balancing the individual's fundamental right to travel against the state's investigatory needs, imposed several conditions: the accused must assist the investigation via video conferencing or physically whenever required, provide their residential addresses and contact details to the NIA within 24 hours, and return to India after one month from the date of departure. They must also inform the court of their return within 72 hours.
Judge Sharma observed that the NIA had not claimed that the immediate physical presence of the accused was necessary, and given that the had already been granted, there was no compelling reason to deny them the opportunity to visit their families. The court allowed the release of their passports in accordance with applicable rules.
Legal Implications: Article 21 and National Security
This ruling is notable for reaffirming that the is an integral part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, even in cases involving national security concerns. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to travel is not absolute and can be restricted by valid laws, but such restrictions must be proportionate and not arbitrary. Here, the court carefully weighed the seriousness of the allegations—which initially involved terrorism charges—against the fact that the accused had been granted bail and that the investigation could proceed remotely.
The decision also highlights a recurring tension in anti-terror investigations: the use of when investigating agencies fail to meet statutory deadlines. The NIA's inability to file a UAPA within 180 days (after obtaining an extension) resulted in the accused securing bail, a scenario that often draws criticism from law enforcement but is mandated by the principle of enshrined in Article 21. The court's permission to travel abroad further reinforces that bail, once granted, should not be rendered meaningless by restricting the accused's liberty beyond what is necessary.
For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder that the right to travel is enforceable even against the backdrop of serious allegations, provided the accused complies with conditions that safeguard the investigation. The court's insistence on video conferencing and periodic reporting reflects a pragmatic approach that leverages technology to balance competing interests.
Background: The Alleged Drone Training Network
According to the NIA, the foreign nationals entered India on tourist visas and traveled to Guwahati before moving to Mizoram without obtaining the required permits. They allegedly crossed into Myanmar, where they participated in pre-scheduled training programs for ethnic armed groups, including the Kachin Independence Army and others opposing Myanmar's military junta. The agency claimed that the accused were involved in assembling drones and planning attacks, including the February 20 drone strike on a passenger aircraft at Myitkyina airport.
Van Dyke, a US filmmaker known for his documentary Point and Shoot (which won the Tribeca Film Festival Best Documentary Award in 2014), has a history of involvement in conflict zones. He fought alongside rebels during the Libyan Civil War, was captured and held in solitary confinement, and later founded Sons of Liberty International, an organization that provides military training to local armed groups. His family had expressed serious concern about his health during detention, stating that he had sometimes been unable to walk and required a wheelchair.
The Ukrainian nationals, identified as military or technical personnel, were similarly alleged to have expertise in drone operations. The NIA's initial invocation of UAPA suggested a broader conspiracy to destabilize the region, but the subsequent reflected a lack of evidence linking the accused's actions to India's national interest or its people.
Impact on Legal Practice and Future Cases
This judgment may influence how courts handle bail conditions in cases where the accused are foreign nationals. It establishes that the right to travel is not automatically forfeited upon arrest, even when the investigation involves anti-terror laws. Courts are likely to continue requiring robust conditions—such as surrender of passports, reporting requirements, and electronic monitoring—but will resist blanket prohibitions on travel.
Moreover, the case underscores the importance of the NIA's obligation to complete investigations within statutory limits. The agency's failure to file a UAPA on time resulted in , a outcome that could have been avoided with more efficient investigation. This may prompt the NIA to expedite its probes in similar high-profile cases.
From a human rights perspective, the decision is a victory for . It affirms that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty extends to all individuals within India's jurisdiction, regardless of nationality. As the court noted, a balance must be maintained—a balance that was achieved here by allowing travel subject to strict conditions.
Conclusion
The Delhi court's order permitting the US and Ukrainian nationals to return home for one month is a landmark ruling that reinforces the fundamental under Article 21. While the case remains under investigation for potential UAPA offences, the accused have been granted a measure of freedom that respects their personal liberty and family ties. Legal professionals will closely watch whether the NIA files a and whether the accused return to India as directed. For now, the court has set a precedent that even in matters of national security, the right to travel is not an absolute bar but a right to be balanced with the legitimate needs of the investigation.
