Case Studies On Explosives And Bomb Threats
Explosives-related offences are usually prosecuted under laws such as:
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 286, 290, 336–338, 505
Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
Arms Act
Anti-terror or special security laws in other jurisdictions
Below are 6 detailed case studies explaining offences, investigations, legal reasoning and judgments.
1. Case Study 1: The 1993 Bombay Blast Case (India)
Background
On March 12, 1993, a series of 13 coordinated bomb explosions occurred in Mumbai (Bombay). RDX and other high explosives were used, placed in vehicles and buildings. This was one of India’s largest urban bombing attacks.
Investigation
Conducted by CBI and local police
Revealed an organised criminal conspiracy involving Dawood Ibrahim’s network
Large quantities of RDX illegally smuggled into India
Forensic experts matched residues found at the blast sites with the explosives confiscated later
Legal Provisions Applied
Explosive Substances Act, 1908
TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act)
IPC – Criminal conspiracy (Sec 120B)
UAPA (used in later proceedings)
Court’s Findings
The TADA Court held that the coordinated nature of blasts proved a well-planned conspiracy
Use of prohibited explosives and foreign-sourced RDX aggravated the severity
Statements of approvers and forensic evidence were crucial
Principle Evolved
Conspiracy for mass-scale bombings can be inferred from coordinated actions, procurement of explosives, planning meetings and witness testimony, even without direct evidence of every accused at each stage.
2. Case Study 2: State of Maharashtra v. Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab (26/11 Mumbai Attacks, 2008)
Background
Part of the 26/11 terror attacks included the use of grenades and explosive devices by the terrorists. Attackers used AK-47 rifles, hand grenades, and IED components.
Evidence Considered
CCTV and eyewitness accounts
Seized explosives, grenade fragments
Forensic analysis confirming Pakistan-manufactured explosive devices
Confessional statement under special law procedure
Judicial Reasoning
Possession and use of hand grenades constituted an offence under the Explosive Substances Act
Because the attack aimed to cause mass casualties and terror, the offence fell under UAPA, making it a terrorist act
Key Legal Principle
Deliberate use of explosives in crowded public places qualifies as a terrorist act; intention can be inferred from the nature of the act and the weapon used.
3. Case Study 3: Parliament Attack Case (State v. Mohammad Afzal & Others, 2001)
Background
In the attack on the Indian Parliament, IEDs and bombs were recovered from the vehicle used by the terrorists.
Investigation
Recovery of large quantities of explosives and electronic detonators
Call records and financial trails linking accused
Forensic evidence matching explosive residues with the bombs carried by terrorists
Charges
Explosive Substances Act
UAPA (then POTA)
IPC 121 (waging war against the nation)
Court Ruling
Even though Afzal Guru did not plant the bomb himself, he was convicted for conspiracy
Courts held that providing logistical support for procuring explosives and facilitating attackers equals active participation
Principle Evolved
“Facilitation” of the use of explosives—logistics, finance, or safe houses—is legally treated the same as direct involvement.
4. Case Study 4: People v. Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon Bombing, USA, 2013)
(International example relevant for explosive-related jurisprudence)
Background
Two pressure-cooker bombs packed with nails and ball bearings exploded at the Boston Marathon in the U.S.
Investigation
Surveillance camera footage
Recovery of unexploded devices
Chemical analysis of explosive powder and bomb fragments
Digital evidence of bomb-making instructions
Court’s Analysis
Prosecution established intent through bomb construction and placement
The device was designed to maximize casualties, proving malice and premeditation
The court imposed the death penalty for the terrorism-related charges
Principle Evolved
Homemade or improvised explosive devices (IEDs) carry the same legal weight as military-grade bombs when used for terror purposes.
5. Case Study 5: State of Rajasthan v. Kansa Ram (Explosive Accident Case)
Background
An explosion occurred in a house where illegal firecrackers and explosive materials were stored without license, causing multiple deaths.
Issues Before Court
Whether possession of explosive substances without license itself implies criminal negligence
Whether the accused could be convicted even if the explosion seemed accidental
Court’s Findings
Storage of explosive substances in a residential area without authority amounts to criminal negligence
Liability is fixed even if the explosion is unintended, because the act of storing is inherently dangerous
Principle Evolved
Illegal possession or careless handling of explosives is punishable irrespective of intent, because the offence focuses on potential danger to public safety.
6. Case Study 6: Kishan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (IPC Sections 286 & 336)
Background
The accused used detonators to clear land for construction, leading to an explosion that injured nearby villagers.
Legal Questions
Whether the accused could be punished when they claimed the explosion was accidental
Whether precautions taken were adequate
Court Held
Using explosive materials near residential areas, regardless of a permit, requires strict safety precautions
Failure to follow standard safety protocol led to conviction under Sections 286 (negligent conduct with explosive substances) and 336 (act endangering life/ personal safety)
Principle Evolved
Any person using explosives must show strict adherence to safety measures; failure results in criminal liability.
CONSOLIDATED LEGAL PRINCIPLES FROM THESE CASES
Explosives used in terror attacks create strict liability under special laws (TADA, UAPA, POTA).
Conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as procurement of explosives, communication traces, and coordinated acts.
Even facilitators and supporters (not physically handling bombs) are equally liable for conspiracy.
Possession of explosives without valid license is a punishable offence regardless of intent.
Negligent storage or use of explosives attracts criminal liability even in accidental explosions.
IEDs, homemade bombs, or pressure-cooker bombs are treated the same as conventional explosives for legal purposes.
RELATED Blog
comments