Punjab and Haryana High Court First Time Seeks ChatGPT’s Response on Bail Jurisprudence Across the World
For the first time, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while adjudicating a bail petition has sought the response from the Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered chatbot developed by OpenAI, ChatGPT as a means of getting a broader insight into the bail jurisprudence in various countries around the world.
To assess the worldwide view on bail when the assault is laced with cruelty, the single judge Justice Anoop Chitkara used the AI tool and put the following question to it:
“What is the jurisprudence on bail when the assailants assaulted with cruelty?”
To which, ChatGPT responded with:
“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.”
However, the Court pertinently stressed on the fact that any reference to ChatGPT and any observation made hereinabove was neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. This reference was only intended to present a broader picture on bail jurisprudence, where cruelty is a factor.
The Court while perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, primafacie found that pointed towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The petitioner’s counsel had further argued that he was entitled to bail on grounds of parity.
However, the Court noted that his role was well defined and he was neither entitled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of parity. Any further discussions were likely to prejudice the petitioner. Furthermore, the trial was at an advance stage and five witnesses have already testified, remarked the judge.
Stressing that when the offense is heinous and the crime is brutal, cruelty becomes one of the factors in granting or refusing bail, the Court observed, “the impact of individuals who act with cruelty is devastating not only for those on whom the direct harm and pain is inflicted but also on a systemic level. Cruel individuals contribute to sustain the greater deficiencies of society like gender, economic and social inequalities. Once the courts form a prima facie opinion that the accused acted with cruelty, then such an accused ordinarily should not be granted bail, and if the courts still deem it appropriate to grant, then it must be after specifying the reasons for such an indulgence.”
Due to the aforesaid observations, the Court concluded that an analysis of the allegations, injuries, and evidence collected pointed out that the accused and some of his accomplices acted with ferociousness and total lack of mercy which does not warrant the grant of bail to the accused.