Investigation Of Bomb Blast And Terrorism Cases
🔍 I. Key Features of Bomb Blast & Terrorism Investigations
Specialized Agencies Involved:
National Investigation Agency (NIA) – India
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – USA
Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) – State-level units (India)
Counter-Terrorism Departments (CTDs) – Pakistan
MI5/MI6, ISI, Mossad, FSB – Intelligence agencies
Applicable Laws:
India: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Explosive Substances Act, CrPC
Pakistan: Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997
US: USA PATRIOT Act, FISA, Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
UK: Terrorism Act 2000
Standard Investigative Process:
Immediate site cordoning and forensic preservation
FIR/complaint registration (under CrPC or relevant code)
Collection of bomb residues, explosive traces, DNA, CCTV
Surveillance, arrests, and custodial interrogation
Coordination with intelligence and cybercrime units
Filing of charge sheet under CrPC/UAPA/ATA within set timeframes
Challenges:
High public pressure
Difficulty in evidence collection
Risk of custodial torture or forced confessions
Inter-agency coordination
Cross-border terrorist networks
📚 Detailed Case Law: Investigation of Bomb Blast & Terrorism Cases
1. The 1993 Bombay Serial Blasts Case (India)
Facts:
On March 12, 1993, 13 bomb explosions rocked Mumbai, killing over 250 people and injuring 700+. The attacks were orchestrated by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim, allegedly with ISI support. Investigations were handled by the CBI and Mumbai Police, later transferred to TADA court (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act).
Investigative Highlights:
Use of confessional statements under TADA
Recovery of RDX, arms, and cash through multiple raids
Involvement of customs officials and film industry figures
Linkage with Pakistan-based handlers
Legal Outcome:
Multiple convictions under TADA, IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act
Yakub Memon was hanged in 2015; others received life or death sentences
Dawood Ibrahim remains a fugitive
Significance:
First use of TADA in a mass terrorism case
Highlighted multi-agency coordination and flaws in port security
2. The 26/11 Mumbai Attacks Case (India, 2008)
Facts:
Ten Pakistani terrorists from Lashkar-e-Taiba infiltrated Mumbai via sea, launching coordinated attacks across the city, killing 166 people.
Investigative Procedure:
Surveillance footage, GPS data, mobile records used
Capture of Ajmal Kasab, the only surviving terrorist
Intelligence agencies traced back handlers to Pakistan
Forensic examination of bullet casings and grenades
Legal Framework Used:
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
CrPC
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Explosive Substances Act
Verdict:
Kasab was convicted in a fast-track trial and executed in 2012
Case led to the strengthening of coastal security and formation of NIA
Significance:
Model investigation under extreme pressure
Emphasized importance of digital forensics and global intelligence sharing
3. Samjhauta Express Blast Case (India, 2007)
Facts:
The Samjhauta Express, a train between India and Pakistan, was bombed near Panipat, killing 68 people, mostly Pakistanis.
Investigation:
Initial suspicion on Pakistani elements, later shifted to Indian right-wing extremists
Investigation handled by NIA
Use of call records, explosives tracing, and narco-analysis
Legal Complexities:
Conflicting theories led to accused being acquitted in 2019
Lack of direct evidence and hostile witnesses hurt prosecution
Significance:
Revealed issues of bias, political interference, and improper evidence collection
Highlighted need for objective, apolitical investigations
4. Islamabad Marriott Hotel Bombing (Pakistan, 2008)
Facts:
A massive suicide bombing outside the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad killed over 50 people. The attack was linked to Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
Investigation:
Forensic analysis of explosives and CCTV
Intelligence from mobile intercepts and eyewitnesses
Suspect networks identified in tribal areas
Legal Outcome:
Anti-Terrorism Courts initiated proceedings under ATA 1997
Some suspects were arrested but many cases remained inconclusive due to security challenges
Significance:
Demonstrated difficulties in prosecuting suicide bombings
Emphasized need for intelligence-driven counterterrorism laws
5. Pulwama Terror Attack Case (India, 2019)
Facts:
A suicide bomber killed 40 CRPF personnel in Pulwama, Jammu & Kashmir. Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility.
Investigation:
Handled by NIA
Use of DNA identification of bomber, vehicle forensics, call data records
Identification of local and foreign links, particularly to Pakistan-based operatives
Legal Developments:
Case built under UAPA, Explosive Substances Act, IPC
Some accused killed in encounters, others arrested and awaiting trial
Significance:
Led to heightened tensions between India and Pakistan
NIA used forensics and cyber evidence to link handlers abroad
6. Lahore Model Town Bombing Case (Pakistan, 2010s)
Facts:
Multiple bombings occurred in Lahore over several years, including attacks on police academies and shrines.
Investigation:
Joint efforts by CTD Punjab and ISI
Use of forensic labs for bomb residue, mobile location data, and informants
Arrest of local facilitators
Court Proceedings:
Tried under Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997
Use of confession under Section 164 CrPC and witness protection
Challenges:
Witness intimidation, lack of forensic storage, and external interference
Significance:
Pushed reforms in witness protection and fast-track terrorism courts
⚖️ Key Legal Tools and Practices in Such Investigations
| Legal Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| FIR (CrPC Section 154) | First step in initiating legal process |
| Custodial Interrogation (Section 167) | Police/judicial remand for investigation |
| Forensic Reports | Crucial in linking suspects to the crime |
| Confession Statements (Sec 164) | Voluntary confessions before a magistrate |
| Charge Sheet (CrPC Section 173) | Final police report for trial |
| Witness Protection Programs | Ensure safety of key witnesses in high-risk trials |
| UAPA/ATA/TADA Provisions | Deal specifically with terrorism, allowing longer detention |
🧾 Conclusion
Investigating bomb blast and terrorism cases involves complex coordination between forensic, intelligence, and legal systems. The Criminal Procedure Code, along with special anti-terror laws, provides the legal backbone for handling these cases. However, successful prosecution depends heavily on evidence integrity, independent investigation, and judicial courage.
The cases discussed demonstrate both successes and challenges, emphasizing the need for:
Timely and scientific investigation
International cooperation
Protection of due process even in terror-related cases
Upgraded forensic and surveillance infrastructure
RELATED Blog
comments