The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in first-of-its-kind instance, sought response of the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT to assess the worldwide view on bail jurisprudence in a case of assault laced with cruelty.

The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara while hearing the bail plea, used the AI tool and put the following question to it: "What is the jurisprudence on bail when the assailants assaulted with cruelty?"

Response given by ChatGPT was-

“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 clarified that any reference to ChatGPT and any observation made was neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments and it was only intended to present a broader picture on bail jurisprudence.

Advocate J.K. Goel appeared for the petitioner and AAG Sinish Girdhar appeared for the State- respondent.

The Bench was dealing with bail plea moved by the petitioner who had been accused of brutally assaulting the deceased along with his accomplices leading to his death.

The Court noted that the complainant and the deceased who were unarmed were waylaid by the petitioner and his other accomplices and attacked in an abhorrent manner as substantiated by the nature of injuries on their bodies. It was also noted that the petitioner had criminal history of two attempt to murder cases.

“Causing death itself is cruel but if the cruelty causes death, the tables turn. When the physical assault is done with an element of cruelty, the parameters of bail also change.” expressed the Court.

The Court further said that “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 specifying the reasons for such an indulgence.”

The Court concluded that an analysis of the allegations, injuries and evidence collected prima facie suggested that the accused and his accomplices acted with ferociousness and total lack of mercy which does not warrant grant of bail to the accused.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Cause Title- Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi v. State of Punjab and another

Click here to read/download the Judgment