The allegation made against the appellant is one of causing hurt by ram dao which definitely does not come within the mischief of Explosive Substances Act and the allegation of explosion of bombs has been made in lump but the appellants surrendered before the CMM, Khulna immediately after filing the FIR and he never misused the privilege of bail and as such there should not be any discrimination in granting bail to appellant when other accused persons are enjoying the privilege of bail.
Yonus Member vs State, 1 BLC 451.
Although the local witnesses deposed that appellant Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by using an explosive substance but the doctor opined that the injury was caused by a chemical substance when the investigating officer failed to get the injury and the shirt of PW 1 examined by an expert to find out whether PW 1 sustained inury by explosive substance it cannot be said that it is proved that Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by explosive substance.
Aminul Islam alias Ranga and others vs State 5 BLC (AD) 179.
As the explosive substance was not tested by chemical expert and the seizure list witness even did not know the contents of the polythene bag the alleged recovery from the appellants was not proved and the conviction was set aside.
Mohammad Ali and another vs State 1 BLC 164.
PW 1, the informant, is the sole witness not corroborated by any other independent witness on the point of seizure and recovery of bomb from the convict and such testimony cannot be relied on in the absence of corroboration by independent and unimpeachable evidence as the informant is interested in the result of the case and as such he is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
Harun Bepari (Md) vs State 5 BLC 501.