The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently used an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot developed by OpenAI, ChatGPT, to decide a bail case.
When an assailant’s assault is cruel, Justice Anoop Chitkara used the AI tool to gain a more comprehensive view of bail jurisprudence.
“What is the jurisprudence on bail when the assailants assaulted with cruelty?” was asked of ChatGPT.
“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. In general, however, if the assailants have been charged with a serious crime including cruelty, such as murder, aggravated assault, or torture, they may be regarded a threat to the community and a flight risk. In such cases, the judge may be less likely to grant bail or may establish a very high bond sum to ensure that the prisoner arrives in court and does not endanger public safety. A court will examine the seriousness of the assault, the defendant’s criminal history, and the weight of the evidence against them before considering whether to grant bail. It is vital to highlight that the presumption of innocence is a key principle of the legal system, and all defendants are entitled to bail unless strong reasons exist to reject it. As a result, even though the assailants have been cruelly assaulted, they may be given bail if the judge judges that they do not pose a risk to the community or a flight risk,” the AI tool responded.
The Court further stressed in its order that the reference to ChatGPT is not an expression on the merits of the case.
“Any reference to ChatGPT and any observation made hereinabove is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court refer 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 originating from an attempted murder case in which the petitioner and some accomplices violently assaulted one individual, resulting in their death. The accused also has a criminal history of two cases.
While reviewing bail jurisprudence, the Court stated that causing death is cruel in and of itself, but if the cruelty causes death, the tables are turned.
When a physical assault is committed with cruelty, the limitations of bail change since the impact is systemic, according to Justice Chitkara.
“When the crime is heinous and the offence is heinous, cruelty becomes a factor in granting or refusing bail,” Justice Chitkara stated.
Furthermore, the judge added that once a court forms a prima facie conclusion that an accused acted cruelly, such an accused should not be given bail in most cases.
If the courts nevertheless believe it is acceptable to give bail, it should be done only after the reasons for such an indulgence are disclosed.
“An examination of the allegations, injuries, and evidence gathered in this case reveals that the accused and some of his accomplices acted with ferocity and a total lack of mercy. As a result, the Court declined to grant bail to the accused.”
As a result, the bail plea was denied.
