Delhi HC Upholds 180-Day UAPA Detention Extension for Ukrainian Nationals Linked to Myanmar Drone Conspiracy
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed a writ petition by six Ukrainian nationals challenging a NIA court order that extended their detention up to 180 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA, finding no illegality or non-application of mind in the Special Judge's order.
The High Court of Delhi, by an order dated 31 August 2026, dismissed a petition filed by six Ukrainian nationals — collectively referred to as Hurba Petro and Others — who sought to set aside a Special Court's order extending their detention under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Justice Madhu Jain, sitting singly, found that the Additional Sessions Judge-03/Special Judge (NIA Court), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi had applied its mind to the Public Prosecutor's report, the case diaries, and the petitioners' objections before permitting the NIA to continue investigating beyond the initial 90-day period and up to the statutory maximum of 180 days. The petitioners had argued that the extension was mechanical, the reasons were repetitive, and no individualised ground for the continued custody of each of the six accused had been recorded. The court rejected each submission.
The Arrests and the NIA Investigation
FIR No. RC-07/2026/NIA/DLI was registered on 13 March 2026 at Police Station NIA, New Delhi under Section 18 of the UAPA. The registration followed a direction issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the same date, asking the National Investigation Agency to take over the investigation.
According to the FIR, information had been received about the involvement of certain individuals in an alleged drone attack on a civilian aircraft in Myanmar. The allegations extended to fourteen Ukrainian nationals who had entered India on tourist visas, travelled to Mizoram without the required Restricted Area Permit or Protected Area Permit, and thereafter allegedly entered Myanmar, where they were said to be conducting training in drone warfare, drone operations, assembly, and jamming technology for Myanmar-based Ethnic Armed Groups.
The six petitioners, who were Ukrainian nationals holding Ukrainian passports and Indian tourist visas, were arrested by the NIA at the Lucknow and Delhi airports on 13 March 2026. They were produced before the competent court on 14 March 2026 and initially placed in police custody. Police custody was extended from time to time, running for a total of 24 days up to 6 April 2026. On 6 April 2026 they were remanded to judicial custody for 30 days, and the investigation period was further extended on 6 May 2026 until 4 June 2026.
The Extension Application and the Special Court's Order
On 3 June 2026 — one day before the then-current authorised period was to expire — the NIA moved an application under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA read with Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to extend the investigation and, consequently, the detention of the petitioners beyond 90 days and up to the maximum of 180 days.
The petitioners opposed the application before the Special Judge. Their objections were fourfold: the statutory parameters under Section 43-D(2)(b) had not been met; no specific reasons had been disclosed for the continued detention of each individual; the NIA had not explained why the investigation could not be wrapped up within the initial 90-day period; and the grounds relied upon were substantially identical to those in earlier remand applications.
The petitioners also argued that the extension application ought to be deferred until 10 June 2026, when the 90-day period would expire, so that their right to default bail could crystallise if the charge-sheet was not filed by then. The Special Judge rejected that argument, holding that there was no legal requirement to defer an extension application until the 90th day.
By the impugned order dated 4 June 2026, the Special Judge allowed the NIA's application and extended the period of investigation and detention up to 180 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA read with Section 187 of the BNSS.
The Procedural Route to the High Court
Aggrieved by the Special Court's order, the petitioners first approached the High Court by way of an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. They argued that the extension order effectively postponed their right to default bail and was therefore amenable to appellate jurisdiction.
A Division Bench of the High Court considered the question of maintainability in Petro and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2026:DHC:6261-DB. The Division Bench held that an order granting extension under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA is an interlocutory order and is not appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act. However, it observed that such an order remained amenable to judicial review under the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 528 of the BNSS.
The Division Bench accordingly disposed of the appeal with a direction that it be renumbered as a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and placed before the concerned Roster Bench. The matter then came before Justice Madhu Jain in that form.
Arguments Before Justice Madhu Jain
Senior counsel for the petitioners pressed several distinct lines of attack. First, she argued that Section 43-D(2)(b) sets two conjunctive conditions that must both be met: the Public Prosecutor's report must indicate the progress of investigation, and it must disclose specific reasons for detention beyond 90 days. Relying on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602, she submitted that these are conditions precedent, not mere formalities, and that the investigating agency must satisfy the Public Prosecutor regarding both the progress of investigation and the need for further custody of the accused specifically.
Second, she submitted that the reasons offered by the NIA — a deep-rooted conspiracy, investigation at a crucial stage, and pending analysis of electronic devices, bank accounts, and financial records — did not explain why the petitioners themselves needed to remain physically detained. No individualised reason had been recorded for any of the six accused. Relying on Jigar @ Jimmy v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 6 SCC 484, she argued that the court is required to consider the report with a view to determining whether both statutory requirements have actually been fulfilled.
Third, she argued that the same grounds had been used to justify successive remand applications since March 2026. A ground already repeatedly invoked for obtaining remand cannot, without something fresh, constitute a specific reason for extending detention to the 180-day maximum.
Fourth, she raised a distinct challenge on quantum. Even if some extension was justified, the Special Judge had mechanically jumped from 90 days to the statutory maximum of 180 days without considering whether a shorter additional period — 10, 30, or 60 days — would suffice. The statute says the period “may be extended up to 180 days”, not that the balance period is automatically granted. Relying on Ravinder v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 398, she submitted that the conditions are sine qua non and that their non-satisfaction disentitles the prosecution from any extension at all.
The NIA's Special Public Prosecutor opposed the petition on each point. He submitted that the Public Prosecutor's report had been placed before the Special Judge in a sealed cover along with the case diaries; that the Special Judge had independently reviewed that material; and that fresh facts collected during investigation had been placed before the court, as the Special Judge had specifically noted. He submitted that the investigation involved transnational dimensions, examination of electronic devices, financial transactions, and pending forensic reports, and that several persons connected with the conspiracy remained to be traced and examined. He further relied on Zeeshan Qamar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 5 SCC 178, for the proposition that the Public Prosecutor's report and case diary are not required to be furnished to the accused, and that the Special Court need not disclose the detailed course of investigation in its order where disclosure might prejudice the investigation. On the quantum issue, he argued that once the Special Judge is satisfied, there is no requirement under Section 43-D(2)(b) to grant extension in smaller stages.
How the High Court Reasoned
Justice Madhu Jain accepted that Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA requires the Special Court to be satisfied on the basis of the Public Prosecutor's report regarding both the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention beyond 90 days. The court acknowledged that this is not an empty formality, citing the Supreme Court's reiteration of the same principle in Jigar v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1352. But the court drew a distinction between those substantive requirements and the scope of interference under Section 528 of the BNSS: the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court at this stage is confined to examining whether the statutory requirements were substantially complied with and whether the Special Court applied its mind to the material before it.
On the question of whether the reasons were repetitive, the court declined to interfere. The Special Judge had specifically recorded that the material before the court was not a mechanical reproduction of earlier applications and that fresh facts and evidence collected during investigation were available for consideration. The court noted that the investigation involved pending forensic reports, extraction and analysis of electronic data, scrutiny of financial transactions, and field investigation concerning additional entities, with several persons yet to be traced and examined.
On the argument that the Special Court ought not to have disclosed the contents of the Public Prosecutor's report in its order, the court relied on the Delhi High Court's own judgment in Zeeshan Qamar. The report and the case diaries are placed before the Special Court in a sealed cover; the accused is heard on objections but is not entitled to a copy of the report. The Special Court is not required to reproduce the contents of that confidential material in its order.
On the quantum issue — the argument that the court should have granted a shorter extension rather than the full remaining period — Justice Madhu Jain held that granting the maximum permissible period is not, by itself, evidence of mechanical exercise of power. The statute permits extension up to 180 days upon satisfaction of the conditions. Where the Special Judge has recorded satisfaction on the basis of the report and the case diaries, and where no demonstrable perversity or violation of the statutory requirements has been shown, the mere fact that the maximum was granted does not justify interference in inherent jurisdiction.
On the default bail argument, the court was equally firm. The extension application was moved and decided before the expiry of the initial 90-day period. Once a valid order extending the investigation period is passed within the statutory period, no indefeasible right to default bail arises merely because the charge-sheet was not filed within the initial 90 days. The petitioners' right to default bail, therefore, depended entirely on establishing that the extension order itself was legally infirm. Having found no such infirmity, the court held that the default bail claim did not survive.
Finally, the court rejected the submission that separate, individualised reasons were required for each of the six petitioners. The Special Judge was dealing with a common application arising out of the same RC. The petitioners were alleged to be connected with a common set of transactions and events. The court found no material to conclude that the discretion exercised by the Special Judge was arbitrary or showed non-application of mind simply because the six accused were dealt with by a composite order.
Outcome
Justice Madhu Jain found no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the order dated 4 June 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03/Special Judge (NIA Court), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. W.P.(CRL) 2408/2026 was dismissed. All pending applications stood disposed of. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for necessary information and compliance.