Explosives Offenses, Bomb-Making, And Associated Investigations

05 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

I. Overview: Explosives Offenses and Bomb-Making

1. Legal Framework

In India:

Explosives Act, 1884 – Governs manufacture, possession, transport, and sale of explosives.

Bombs Act, 1983 – Deals with unlawful possession, use, or detonations of bombs and explosives.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 120B, 121, 122, 307, 435, 436 – Relevant for terrorist acts, conspiracy, and damage to property.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Covers terrorist acts involving explosives.

Internationally:

US: 18 U.S.C. §§ 844–846 – Covers bombings, explosives offenses, and terrorist attacks.

UK: Explosives Act 1875, Terrorism Act 2000 – Addresses bomb-making, possession, and use for terrorism.

2. Key Types of Explosives Offenses

Manufacture of explosives – Unauthorized production of explosives or bomb components.

Possession or storage – Keeping explosives without legal permission.

Transportation of explosives – Moving explosives unlawfully.

Use or detonation – Intentionally setting off explosives to harm persons or property.

Conspiracy – Planning explosives offenses even if the act is not carried out.

3. Investigative Approaches

Scene Examination – Collection of residue, fragments, and blast patterns.

Forensic Analysis – Explosive chemical analysis (TNT, RDX, PETN), fingerprinting on bomb components.

Digital Forensics – Communication, emails, chat logs, or tutorials used for bomb-making.

Intelligence & Surveillance – Monitoring suspect networks and acquiring prior warnings.

Legal Procedures – Proper seizure, documentation, and adherence to chain-of-custody rules.

II. Case Law Examples

Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Qayyum (Bomb Blast Case)

Facts: Abdul Qayyum was accused of planting bombs in a crowded public market.
Investigation:

Bomb fragments and explosive residue were collected.

CCTV footage traced the accused to the crime scene.

Witnesses identified suspicious behavior prior to the blast.
Legal Outcome: Convicted under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosives Act and relevant IPC sections.
Lesson: Physical evidence combined with eyewitness and video evidence is critical in explosives investigations.

Case 2: Delhi Police v. Arif Khan (Improvised Explosive Device Manufacture)

Facts: Arif Khan was caught assembling improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in a residential area.
Investigation:

Police conducted a raid based on intelligence.

Components such as timers, wires, and explosive chemicals were seized.

Laboratory analysis confirmed the explosive nature of substances.
Legal Outcome: Convicted for illegal manufacture of explosives under Explosives Act and IPC Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance).
Lesson: Preemptive raids and laboratory analysis prevent potential mass-casualty events.

Case 3: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Faisal Ansari (Terrorist Use of Explosives)

Facts: Faisal Ansari was linked to a terrorist group planning a coordinated bombing in a railway station.
Investigation:

Intercepted communications revealed bomb-making instructions.

Explosive materials were recovered from a safe house.

Expert testimony confirmed the ability of the devices to cause significant damage.
Legal Outcome: Convicted under UAPA, Explosives Act, and IPC Sections 121–122 (waging war against the state) and 307 (attempt to murder).
Lesson: Intelligence gathering and forensic analysis are key in thwarting terrorist bomb plots.

Case 4: Karnataka Police v. Ravi Kumar (Bomb-Making Online Tutorials)

Facts: Ravi Kumar was found to be using online tutorials to make explosives for criminal activities.
Investigation:

Digital forensics recovered manuals and chat logs indicating intent to build bombs.

Chemical precursors and bomb kits were seized from his residence.
Legal Outcome: Convicted for unlawful manufacture, possession, and intention to use explosives under Explosives Act and IPC Section 120B (criminal conspiracy).
Lesson: Online resources and digital footprints are strong indicators of intent and planning.

Case 5: State v. Mohsin Sheikh (Transport of Explosives)

Facts: Mohsin Sheikh was apprehended transporting high explosives across state borders.
Investigation:

Routine police checkpoint led to seizure of explosives.

Vehicle analysis and logs traced the supply chain.

Forensic testing confirmed chemical identity of explosives.
Legal Outcome: Convicted for unlawful transport under Sections 5 and 7 of the Explosives Act, along with criminal conspiracy under IPC.
Lesson: Transportation is as heavily penalized as manufacture or use; proper documentation is mandatory.

Case 6: NIA v. Zafar Khan (Conspiracy to Use Explosives in Public Places)

Facts: Zafar Khan was part of a terrorist conspiracy planning attacks using explosives in multiple cities.
Investigation:

Surveillance and interception of communications provided intelligence.

Bomb-making materials and chemical precursors were seized in coordinated raids.

Witness testimony corroborated digital and physical evidence.
Legal Outcome: Convicted under UAPA, Explosives Act, and IPC Sections 120B and 436.
Lesson: Large-scale conspiracies require coordination between intelligence agencies and forensic experts.

III. Key Takeaways from Case Law

Evidence Diversity: Physical fragments, chemical residues, digital communications, and surveillance recordings are often used together.

Conspiracy Matters: Planning alone, even without detonation, is punishable.

Preventive Policing: Raids based on intelligence can avert major attacks.

Digital Evidence: Online instructions, chats, and tutorials increasingly form part of prosecution evidence.

Inter-agency Cooperation: Bomb-making and explosives offenses often involve national and state-level agencies, including NIA, police, and forensic labs.