New Delhi [India], August 24 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its order on a plea filed by Ukrainian nationals accused in the alleged Myanmar terror training case, challenging the extension of the investigation period from 90 days to 180 days.
Justice Madhu Jain reserved the order after hearing arguments from the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the petitioners. The court is scheduled to pronounce its order on August 31.
The petition has been filed by Ukrainian nationals, including Hurba Petro, who are among the accused arrested by the NIA in April 2026 in connection with the case registered under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
According to the case details, six Ukrainian nationals and one US national, Matthew Aaron Vandyke, are in custody in connection with the investigation.
Appearing for the NIA, Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, along with advocates Jatin Khatri and Amit Rohila, opposed the plea and submitted that the extension of the investigation period was granted by the trial court after due application of judicial mind and consideration of the report submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor.
The NIA argued that the investigation was still underway and that the court could extend the period of investigation after considering the SPP’s report and the application seeking such extension.
The agency also submitted that the application was deliberately kept generic to protect the confidentiality of the ongoing investigation.
“It was also submitted that the application was kept as a generic one intentionally to keep the development of the investigation confidential. We can’t disclose how far we have come and how far we will have to go,” the NIA submitted.
The agency further argued that the accused had not actually moved bail applications but were seeking release on the ground that the investigation had not been completed.
“They did not move any bail application. They simply submitted that they sought to be released because the investigation is not completed,” the NIA submitted.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramkrishnan, appearing with Advocate Nitin Saluja for the petitioners, opposed the NIA’s submissions.
The petitioners argued that the extension of the investigation period had effectively defeated their statutory right to default bail. They submitted that the right to bail in such circumstances is connected with the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioners’ counsel also argued that the trial court had extended the investigation period by another 90 days at one stretch.
The present proceedings follow an earlier order of the Delhi High Court dated August 4, when a division bench disposed of an appeal filed by six Ukrainian nationals challenging their detention and the extension of the investigation period.
A bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan had held that an order extending the period for investigation under the UAPA was an interlocutory order and therefore not appealable under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act.
“This Court agrees with the above decisions that an order granting extension of time for investigation under Section 43D(2) of the UAPA being an interlocutory order would not be an appealable order under Section 21 of the NIA Act,” the court had said in its August 4 judgment.
However, the division bench also reiterated that such an order could be subjected to judicial review under Section 482 of the CrPC or Section 528 of the BNSS.
Following a request from the petitioners’ senior counsel, the division bench directed that the appeal be treated as a writ petition under the relevant provisions and placed before the appropriate roster bench.
The earlier appeal had challenged the June 4, 2026 order passed by the NIA Court at Patiala House Courts, through which the trial court had extended the period of judicial custody beyond 90 days to 180 days after considering the agency’s application.
During those proceedings, the NIA had also raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the custody-extension order was interlocutory and could not be challenged under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
The petitioners, however, had relied on a December 2024 judgment of another Delhi High Court division bench in the Anamul Ansari case, arguing that an appeal against such an order could be maintainable in certain circumstances.
The latest plea therefore concerns the legality of the extension of the investigation period and its impact on the accused’s claim for default bail.
The Delhi High Court is now expected to pronounce its order on August 31. (ANI)
Related reading
