News Date :
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Monday used artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot developed by OpenAI, ChatGPT while deciding a bail case.
Justice Anoop Chitkara used the AI tool to derive a broader picture of bail jurisprudence when an assailant’s assault is one that involves cruelty.
The following question was put to ChatGPT:
“What is the jurisprudence on bail when the assailants assaulted with cruelty?
The AI tool gave the following response:
“The jurisprudence on bail for cases where the assailants have assaulted with cruelty will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction where the case is being tried. However, in general, if the assailants have been charged with a violent crime that involves cruelty, such as murder, aggravated assault, or torture, they may be considered a danger to the community and a flight risk. In such cases, the judge may be less inclined to grant bail or may set the bail amount very high to ensure that the defendant appears in court and does not pose a risk to public safety. The severity of the assault, the defendant’s criminal history, and the strength of the evidence against them are all factors that a judge will consider when deciding whether to grant bail. It is important to note that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of the justice system, and all defendants are entitled to bail unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. Therefore, even in cases where the assailants have assaulted with cruelty, they may still be granted bail if the judge determines that they do not pose a risk to the community or a flight risk.”
The Court in its order also clarified that reference to ChatGPT is not an expression on the merits of the case.
“Any reference to ChatGPT and any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. This reference is only intended to present a broader picture on bail jurisprudence, where cruelty is a factor,” the judge clarified.
The Court was hearing a bail application arising from an attempt-to-murder case wherein the petitioner along with some accomplices had brutally assaulted an individual which eventually led to their death.
The accused also had a criminal history of two cases.
The Court, while examining bail jurisprudence, observed that causing death itself is cruel but if the cruelty causes death the tables turn.
Justice Chitkara was of the opinion that when the physical assault is done with an element of cruelty, the parameters of bail also change since its impact is also systemic.
“When the offense is heinous and the crime is brutal, cruelty becomes one of the factors in granting or refusing bail.”
Further, the judge stated that once courts form a prima facie opinion that an accused acted with cruelty, such an accused should ordinarily not be granted bail.
In a scenario courts still deem it appropriate to grant bail, it should be done only after specifying the reasons for such an indulgence.
“In the present case, an analysis of the allegations, injuries, and evidence collected points out that the accused and some of his accomplices acted with ferociousness and total lack of mercy. Thus, does not warrant the grant of bail to the accused,” the Court said.
Hence, it dismissed the bail plea.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate JK Goel while AAG Sinish Girdhar appeared for the State.
Advocates Himanshu Garg and Sandeep Kumar represented the complainant.
