Published: September 24, 2026 | Lexhub | AI Generated
Quick Summary: On September 23, 2026, Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma granted default bail to six Ukrainian nationals arrested in a drone warfare training case linked to Myanmar. The court released them on personal cash bonds of ₹1 lakh each under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The Case: Facts and Background
Who were arrested?
- Six Ukrainian nationals: Petro Hurba, Taras Slyviak, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Marian Stefankiv, Maksim Honcharuk, and Viktor Kaminskyi
- Arrested on March 13, 2026 from Lucknow and Delhi airports
- Additionally, US national Matthew Aaron Van Dyke was arrested the same day (making 7 foreign nationals total in the investigation)
The allegations:
- Unauthorized entry into India’s restricted border state of Mizoram
- Illegal cross-border movement into Myanmar
- Operating as mercenaries training ethnic armed groups in drone warfare
- Illegally importing drone consignments from Europe to Myanmar via India
- Investigation under the National Investigation Agency (NIA)
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 13, 2026 | All 7 foreign nationals arrested |
| March 27, 2026 | Court remands all in police custody; extended hearing scheduled |
| April-August 2026 | Multiple judicial remand extensions (30-day cycles) |
| September 18, 2026 | Matthew Van Dyke granted default bail |
| September 23, 2026 | Six Ukrainians granted default bail by Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma |
Understanding Default Bail Under Section 187(3) BNSS
Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023:
“…the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXV…”
What is Default Bail?
Default bail (also called statutory bail) is an indefeasible right granted by law when the investigating agency fails to complete its investigation and file a chargesheet within the prescribed statutory period. It is not discretionary—the court must grant it once the period expires and the accused is ready to furnish bail.
This provision embodies Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Liberty) by ensuring the State cannot indefinitely detain an accused without completing investigation.
The 60/90-Day Framework Under Section 187(3) BNSS
| Category of Offence | Maximum Investigation Period | Default Bail Trigger |
|---|---|---|
| Offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for 10 years or more | 90 days | On expiry of 90 days without chargesheet |
| All other offences | 60 days | On expiry of 60 days without chargesheet |
Key Point: The computation of this period starts from the date of first arrest and remand before the Magistrate, not from any subsequent artificial date.
Computation of the Period Under Section 187(2) BNSS
- Police Custody Window: The investigating officer can obtain police custody within the first 40 days (for 60-day cases) or 60 days (for 90-day cases)
- Total Police Custody: Cannot exceed 15 days in total, and may be granted in parts rather than one continuous block
- Judicial Custody: The remaining time (45 days for 60-day offences; 75 days for 90-day offences) is spent in judicial remand
- Chargesheet Filing: Must be filed before the expiry of the full period (60 or 90 days)
How It Applied to the Ukrainian Case
The Ukrainians were arrested on March 13, 2026. Assuming their alleged offences fall under the 90-day category (which appears likely given the NIA involvement and serious charges), the investigation period would expire on June 11, 2026 (90 days from March 13). However, subsequent extensions likely occurred, but when June 11 passed without a complete chargesheet, the statutory right to default bail crystallized.
By September 23, 2026—over 6 months after arrest—the court correctly granted default bail, recognizing that the investigation had not been completed within the statutory period.
Legal Framework: BNS and BNSS Provisions at Play
1. Section 187 BNSS: Arrest, Remand & Default Bail
Section 187(1): Requires the investigating officer to produce the accused before a Magistrate if investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, along with case diary records.
Section 187(2): Governs the period for which a Magistrate can authorize police or judicial custody, structured as windows within the 60/90-day framework.
Section 187(3): The statutory provision granting default bail once the investigation period expires without a chargesheet being filed.
2. Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025: Sections 21 & 23
The court also discharged the six Ukrainians under the following provisions:
- Section 21 (Penalty for Unauthorized Entry): Addresses illegal entry into India or restricted areas
- Section 23 (Penalty for Visa Overstay and General Contraventions): Covers violations of immigration regulations
Significance: The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) had already compounded these offences by imposing a fine of ₹5.5 lakh on each, which allowed the court to discharge them under these sections. Compounding means the offence is settled by payment of the prescribed amount, extinguishing the criminal liability for that specific offence.
3. Relevant BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) Provisions
While the blog focuses on procedure (BNSS), the underlying substantive law derives from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code. The accused were likely charged under:
- Chapter XII of BNS: Offences related to the State (sedition, unauthorized entry into restricted areas)
- Chapter XIV of BNS: Offences relating to elections (if applicable)
- Relevant sections addressing: Conspiracy, unlawful activity, and potential terrorism-related offences
These would typically fall into the 90-day category under Section 187(3) BNSS, given their severity and the NIA’s involvement.
Why This Case Matters: Legal Implications
1. Enforcement of Individual Liberty
This judgment reaffirms that statutory periods under BNSS are not mere guidelines—they are hard limits on the State’s power to detain. The court’s grant of default bail, despite the serious nature of allegations, underscores the constitutional principle that liberty cannot be suspended indefinitely for investigation.
2. Strict Adherence to Investigation Timelines
The NIA, despite being India’s premier anti-terrorism agency, could not complete investigation within 90 days. This signals that investigating agencies must adhere strictly to statutory deadlines, or face mandatory release of accused persons.
3. Immigration Compounding as Alternative Resolution
The court’s discharge of the Ukrainians under Immigration Act sections—facilitated by FRRO compounding—demonstrates an alternative resolution pathway. Instead of prolonged criminal trials, immigration violations can be resolved through administrative mechanisms (fines), allowing the criminal courts to discharge those aspects of the charges.
4. Practical Application of BNSS’s New Custody Framework
The case illustrates BNSS’s reformed custody provisions: police custody windows, judicial remand cycling, and default bail triggers. Courts are now more strictly enforcing these timelines than under the old CrPC regime.
Key Takeaways for Advocates
- Default bail is absolute: Once the statutory period expires and the accused furnishes bail, release is mandatory—courts have no discretion to refuse.
- Computation starts from day 1 of arrest: Do not allow the prosecution to artificially extend this period with procedural delays.
- The 90-day window is narrow: For serious offences, investigating agencies have only 90 days to file a chargesheet. Plan strategy accordingly.
- Compounding offers alternative relief: For immigration/regulatory offences, explore compounding through relevant authorities (FRRO, GST, etc.) to reduce criminal liability.
- Challenge every remand order: Scrutinize whether the remand order complies with Section 187(2) requirements; non-compliant orders can be grounds for default bail applications.
Conclusion
The Delhi Special Court’s grant of default bail to six Ukrainian nationals on September 23, 2026, exemplifies the BNSS, 2023’s shift toward protecting individual liberty while ensuring investigative efficiency. Section 187(3) BNSS is not a discretionary escape hatch for the accused—it is a constitutional safeguard that prevents indefinite detention without investigation completion.
For practicing advocates, this judgment reinforces that:
- The statutory periods under Section 187 are inviolable
- Default bail is a right, not a concession
- Investigating agencies must be held to the timelines, regardless of the severity of allegations
As more courts apply BNSS principles, we expect greater consistency in granting default bail and stricter scrutiny of prosecution remand applications. Advocates challenging prolonged custody must leverage Section 187(3) aggressively, armed with precise computation of the statutory period and readiness to furnish bail on behalf of their clients.
Disclaimer: This analysis is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for case-specific guidance.
