US national gets default bail as NIA fails to complete probe within 180 days
VanDyke case questions selective anti-terror narrative, treatment of Kashmiris
New Delhi: India’s much-publicised anti-terrorism narrative has come under fresh scrutiny after a Delhi court granted default bail to US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke, who had been arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a case initially registered under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
VanDyke was arrested on March 13, 2026, along with six Ukrainian nationals, over allegations that they had travelled to Myanmar and provided weapons and drone-related training to ethnic armed groups. The NIA had initially invoked Section 18 of the UAPA in the case.
However, when the NIA filed its chargesheet on September 8, it invoked provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, while the UAPA investigation remained pending. The agency maintained that further investigation was required to establish the alleged terrorism-related offences.
Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma subsequently described the chargesheet as “piecemeal” and held that the investigating agency could not circumvent statutory default-bail provisions by filing an incomplete chargesheet while continuing its UAPA investigation. VanDyke was granted default bail on September 18.
The court later permitted VanDyke and the six Ukrainian nationals to travel to their respective countries after releasing their passports, with conditions attached.
The case has raised questions over the application of India’s anti-terror laws, particularly when compared with the prolonged incarceration of Kashmiris and members of minority communities under UAPA and other legislation. The issue is not whether VanDyke was entitled to statutory legal protection, but whether similar procedural safeguards are consistently available to all accused persons irrespective of nationality, religion or ethnicity.
The case also highlights the consequences of relying on terrorism allegations before investigators have established sufficient evidence within the legally prescribed period. The NIA has maintained that its UAPA investigation against VanDyke and the other accused has not been closed and that further proceedings remain possible if evidence establishes such offences.
The VanDyke proceedings have therefore brought renewed attention to questions of equality before law and due process in India’s counter-terrorism system.
For Kashmiris and other communities who have faced prolonged detention under draconian laws, the case raises a broader question: whether the statutory protections that operated for a foreign national in this case are being applied with the same effectiveness to those held under India’s anti-terror framework at home.
