Explosives Offenses And Bomb-Making Investigations
1. Introduction: Explosives Offenses and Bomb-Making
Explosives offenses involve illegal possession, manufacture, transport, storage, or use of explosive materials. Bomb-making is often linked to terrorism, organized crime, or sabotage.
Key legislative framework in India:
Explosives Act, 1884 – regulates manufacture, storage, and handling of explosives.
Arms Act, 1959 – governs weapons that may involve explosives.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 – covers explosives used in terrorist activities.
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 307, 120B, 435–440 – criminalizes use of explosives to cause harm, conspiracy, and mischief.
Bomb Detection and Disposal rules – govern investigation and safe handling.
Investigation challenges:
Highly technical and dangerous, requiring bomb disposal squads and forensic labs.
Use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) makes detection difficult.
Often linked to terrorism and organized crime, necessitating inter-agency coordination.
2. Investigation Techniques
Bomb Scene Management:
Establish cordon, evacuate civilians, and secure blast site.
Forensic Analysis:
Chemical analysis of residues, explosive materials, and detonators.
Digital Evidence:
Mobile phones, communication intercepts, and online instructions for bomb-making.
Interrogation & Intelligence:
Information from suspects, informants, and surveillance.
Multi-Agency Coordination:
Police, National Investigation Agency (NIA), and bomb disposal squads often work together.
3. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: Abdul Subhan v. State of Maharashtra (1993)
Facts:
Arrested for possessing explosives intended for sabotage.
Judgment:
Court convicted under Explosives Act Sections 4, 5, and IPC Sections 435 (mischief by fire/explosives).
Significance:
Emphasized strict liability for possession of explosives without license, even if no explosion occurred.
Case 2: Bombay Bomb Blast Case (1993)
Facts:
Multiple bomb blasts in Mumbai; coordinated attacks on markets, trains, and public places.
Judgment:
Court convicted members of underworld gangs and terrorist groups under IPC Sections 302, 307, 120B, and Explosives Act provisions.
Significance:
Demonstrated large-scale investigation coordination, use of forensic evidence, and importance of digital intercepts and informants.
Case 3: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Abdul Karim (2007)
Facts:
Arrested for manufacturing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) for criminal gang activities.
Judgment:
Convicted under Explosives Act Sections 4, 5, IPC Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 435.
Significance:
Highlighted investigation of bomb-making laboratories and forensic examination of devices.
Case 4: Ajmal Kasab – 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attack Case (2012)
Facts:
Pakistani terrorist involved in 2008 Mumbai attacks; used explosives and firearms.
Judgment:
Convicted under UAPA Sections 16, 17, 18, Explosives Act, and IPC Sections 302, 307, 120B.
Significance:
Demonstrated integration of explosives evidence, tactical response, and international terrorism prosecution.
Case 5: Manipur Bomb Blast Case (2010)
Facts:
Bomb blasts in public transport vehicles in Manipur.
Judgment:
Convicted under IPC Sections 307, 435, Explosives Act, and UAPA.
Significance:
Highlighted challenges in proving intent and linking conspirators in remote regions.
Case 6: Delhi Court – POTA Case of 2006
Facts:
Terror group plotting attacks in Delhi using bombs.
Judgment:
Convicted under Explosives Act, UAPA, and IPC Sections 120B, 307.
Digital evidence like emails and chat transcripts helped establish conspiracy.
Significance:
Showed importance of cyber intelligence in bomb-making investigations.
Case 7: Kerala IED Blast Case (2018)
Facts:
Arrest of individuals preparing homemade explosives in rural Kerala.
Judgment:
Convicted under Explosives Act Sections 4, 5, IPC 435, and UAPA provisions.
Significance:
Demonstrated that even small-scale domestic bomb-making activities are strictly prosecuted, emphasizing forensic and investigative rigor.
4. Trends and Observations
Strict Enforcement of Explosives Act:
Possession without license is prosecuted strictly.
Integration with Terror Laws:
Explosives cases often overlap with UAPA and anti-terrorism provisions.
Forensic Reliance:
Chemical and blast residue analysis is central to convictions.
Digital Evidence Increasingly Critical:
Instructions for bomb-making found online are used to prove intent.
Preventive Policing:
Intelligence-based operations prevent planned attacks before detonation.
5. Challenges in Investigation
High risk of secondary explosions during evidence collection.
Difficulty in tracing source of explosive chemicals.
Multi-agency coordination is required for national-level blasts.
Cross-border conspiracy complicates prosecution.
Technical expertise required for IED detection and disposal.
6. Conclusion
Explosives offenses and bomb-making investigations are highly technical and require forensic, intelligence, and legal precision. Cases like:
Abdul Subhan (1993) – illegal possession
Bombay Bomb Blast (1993) – coordinated attacks
Abdul Karim (2007) – IED manufacturing
Ajmal Kasab – 26/11 (2012) – international terrorism
Manipur Bomb Blast (2010) – regional attacks
Kerala IED Blast (2018) – homemade explosives
RELATED Blog
comments