What legal penalties did India apply to Mykhailo Viktorovych Polyakov after his 2025 arrest?
Executive summary
India detained Mykhailo Viktorovych Polyakov after his March 31, 2025 visit to North Sentinel Island, charging him under laws that protect isolated tribal populations and initially placing him in judicial custody; reports say the alleged offenses carry potential prison terms and fines, and some outlets later reported his release on bail under strict conditions [1] [2] [3]. Sources differ on the maximum statutory term—most cite up to five years, while at least one Indian outlet references up to eight years—so the precise potential penalty range reported varies by outlet [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Arrest and statutory basis: held for breaching protections for isolated tribes
Police arrested Polyakov after he returned from North Sentinel Island and accused him of attempting to “interact with the Sentinelese,” a conduct the Andaman and Nicobar authorities say violates Indian laws designed to protect uncontacted tribes; The New York Times reports he was being held on charges that include violating the law protecting aboriginal tribes [2].
2. Immediate custody and court appearances: judicial detention imposed
Local courts ordered judicial custody following the arrest: multiple outlets report that Polyakov was sentenced to 14 days of judicial custody by a local court and had scheduled subsequent appearances in Port Blair as the case proceeded [1] [4] [5].
3. Possible criminal penalties reported: most outlets say up to five years and a fine
Several international and U.S. outlets consistently reported that the alleged offenses carry a possible sentence of up to five years in prison and a fine, a figure repeated widely in reporting from AP-linked regional outlets, CBS and local U.S. coverage [4] [5] [6] [8].
4. Contrasting Indian reporting: at least one outlet cites a longer maximum term
At least one Indian outlet, The Economic Times, published a differing figure—reporting that Polyakov could face up to eight years in prison under the relevant domestic statutes—demonstrating a divergence in how reporters have interpreted or summarized the statutory penalties [7].
5. Post-detention status: reports of bail under strict conditions
Some outlets reported that after roughly a month in custody Polyakov was released on bail under strict conditions, indicating that Indian courts moved from detention to conditional release as the legal process advanced; Daily Mail and other regional outlets covered a bail decision with caveats [3].
6. Consular involvement and procedural context
Reporters note that U.S. consular officials visited Polyakov in custody, reflecting routine diplomatic consular assistance in overseas arrests, and that further local court proceedings were expected in Port Blair as authorities pursued charges [4] [5] [6].
7. Caveats, discrepancies and what reporting does not clearly say
Reporting converges on detention, the invocation of laws protecting isolated tribes, and an initial 14-day judicial custody order, but it does not provide a definitive single legal citation or final sentencing outcome in publicly available reports; the maximum penalty is inconsistently reported—most sources cite five years and a fine while The Economic Times cites eight years—and available stories do not include a court judgment imposing a final prison term or fine at the time of reporting [1] [4] [7].
8. Interpretation and implications
Given the documented facts—arrest for prohibited contact with the Sentinelese, judicial custody, consular visits, media references to statutory maximums of five years (and one report of eight years), and later reporting of bail—India applied criminal detention and pursued prosecution under protective tribal laws rather than immediately deporting him, but public reporting at this stage stops short of showing a final conviction or exact statutory article cited [2] [1] [3] [7].