How to draft a bail application and identify issues using AI: An ultimate guide to use AI as your co-counsel

Can AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT really improve your legal drafts? In this hands-on walkthrough, I will show how AI can help draft a bail application and identify missing legal grounds, formatting issues, narrative inconsistencies, and more. From spotting a missing section reference to refining a persuasive tone, you will learn how to use AI as a co-counsel, not a crutch. This guide walks you through the entire process with real prompts, real feedback, and real impact.

Introduction

You stare at your draft. It looks fine. You have mentioned the facts, attached the necessary documents, and thrown in a few judgments. But then a quiet voice creeps in, “Did I miss something?”

That is the fear every young lawyer knows, fresh out of law school or even a few years into practice. And if you are anything like me, you have caught those mistakes the night before the hearing. A missing prayer clause. No mention of an important section. Repetition where precision was needed. Sound familiar?

This is where AI comes in.

Not by replacing my judgment, but by sharpening it. When I began using AI tools like Claude or ChatGPT, I realised they could act like that brilliant senior who reads your draft with a red pen and zero tolerance for fluff. They notice things you overlooked, highlight inconsistencies, and make you ask better questions.

This article is a walkthrough of how I used AI to review and refine an anticipatory bail application. From identifying weak legal arguments to spotting placeholder errors, you will see how even a final draft has room to grow, and how AI can help you catch those gaps before the judge does.

We will see together:

How to draft a bail application with AI
How to identify issues in the drafted bail application

Let us walk through the process together.

Step 1: Demonstration – drafting with Claude

Let us look at the actual process we followed while working on a live anticipatory bail draft using Claude.

Since Claude does not currently allow sharing of chat links, we will be presenting this as a screen walkthrough, including:

The prompts we used to guide the AI,
The initial draft output, and
The final edited application required only minimal changes.

What stands out is how efficient and aligned the draft was, especially in terms of issue framing, legal citations, and tone.

Let us now look at the demo.

PROMPT 1:

Act as a lawyer and draft an Anticipatory Bail Application for my client under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. I will provide you with the facts of the case in the next prompt.

This gave Claude the context. We told it what role to adopt, what kind of application to draft, and which law to rely on. That sets the tone.

PROMPT 2:

Use the following facts to draft the Application:

Ankit Aggarwal (the Applicant) is a permanent resident of Saket, Delhi and has been working as a Software Engineer with Genpact Gurgaon since 2013. He got married to Sumita (the Complainant) in 2003, and they have a son from the marriage. The Applicant and the Complainant have been living together with the parents of the Applicant in Saket since 2003.

The Complainant filed a Complaint on 17/08/2024 before the Saket Police Station against the Complainant under sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the Applicant made adverse comments on her physical appearance to humiliate her and forcefully took her belongings, including her gold necklace, mobile phone, and laptop, and threw them away. These accusations are completely untrue and concocted to harass and malign the Applicant.

The Applicant apprehends arrest in the matter, especially in view of the fact that the Complainant’s brother, Mr. Rahul Tyagi, is a Deputy Superintendent in the Delhi Police and may misuse his influence to influence the investigation and cause the Applicant’s wrongful arrest. The Applicant is the sole breadwinner of the family and has aged parents and a minor son. The Applicant is also suffering from a heart condition and had undergone a bypass surgery in December 2023.

Claude responded with a surprisingly well-structured draft. It picked up on key legal and emotional cues and arranged them into a coherent narrative, without unnecessary dramatics.

The draft generated by Claude can be found here.

But we wanted to go deeper.

PROMPT 3:

“Retain this draft. Add a paragraph about the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar with respect to arrest in cases under section 498A of the IPC. Include the fact that the Applicant has not received the mandatory Notice under section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to date.”

This refined the argument. Claude not only added the legal point, it integrated it smoothly within the application flow, without making it sound like an afterthought.

The draft generated by Claude can be found here.

PROMPT 4:

Retain this draft. Add a copy of the FIR and the medical reports as annexures.

The final draft after manual edits can be found here.

But here is what stood out most: Claude was excellent at framing persuasive arguments when given the right facts. It could read between the lines. It was not just filling in templates, it was interpreting the case.

Still, some gaps remained. And that brings us to the next section: how to use AI again, not for drafting, but for review.

Step 2: Identifying issues with the drafted bail application

Now we come to the most important part. Yes, we did use AI’s help to draft this bail application. But, just like human errors, AI can make mistakes too.

But you can also make this step easier by making use of AI yet again in order to find out what the errors are in the bail application.

What we did with ChatGPT was, firstly, we uploaded the final draft. And what are the issues that ChatGPT pointed out? Let us see.

One of the reasons I did this was because, just like no two human lawyers review a draft the same way, no two AI tools flag the same gaps. Or maybe it can, but this way, you get the help of two different AI tools instead of one.

And ChatGPT gave us a surprisingly sharp, point-by-point review. Let me break it down for you, and show you how each issue was flagged actually helped us tighten the final application.

I did this with a simple prompt.

Issues we found with the draft

Before we show you what ChatGPT flagged, let me tell you what we already knew was missing..

Here is what we already knew was off:

Some facts were not clearly worded, like the timeline of marriage and residence.
We repeated a few points about employment and false allegations across paragraphs.
The health condition was stated but not linked to a constitutional or legal argument.
The cause title and verification clause were missing.

The real question was: would ChatGPT pick up all of this?

Let us find out.

PROMPT –

Here is a drafted bail application. Please identify the errors in the bail application.

This is a simple one with which you can get ChatGPT to look at your overall application. But you could specify if you want a deeper look. If you are unsure about the case laws you have mentioned, then you could ask ChatGPT to focus more on that.

Issue 1: Incomplete information in key sections

ChatGPT spotted placeholder issues like:

“FIR No. ____/2024” – left blank.
“R/o [Full Address]” – not filled in.
“S/o [Father’s Name]” – still in brackets.
“Filed by [Lawyer’s Name], [Address]” – incomplete.

Why does this matter?

Yes, we did leave these out on purpose because this was done for the purpose of learning and teaching. But when you are actually submitting something, you may have left out a few tiny details, and AI will point that out for you.

It is the equivalent of leaving your name off a college exam sheet. Judges are used to seeing a polished, fully filled-out application. If your draft has placeholders, it signals carelessness. These are easy-to-fix errors, but embarrassing if missed.

How did AI help us fix it?

We used ChatGPT’s comments like a checklist. Then manually filled in the missing details before finalising the application.

Issue 2: Factual inconsistency

ChatGPT pointed out:

Para 3: Says the applicant got married in 2003 and has lived with his parents since 2003.
This seems abrupt. Did the couple move in on the day of the wedding?

This matters because it is not a legal error, but it interrupts narrative credibility. A judge reading quickly might pause and think, That seems odd. Even minor confusion can dilute persuasive flow.

We rewrote the sentence to clarify the timeline without raising unintended questions.

Issue 3: Repetition and redundancy

What ChatGPT spotted:

Para 2 and Para 10 both talk about the applicant’s employment since 2013, which is redundant.
Paras 5, 6, and 7 all address the falsity of allegations in slightly different ways.

Why does this matter?

When you repeat yourself, you lose impact. Bail applications should be tight and focused. Repetition looks like padding and can irritate a judge in a hurry.

We consolidated repetitive sections into single, strong paragraphs.

Issue 4: Weak legal framing

What ChatGPT spotted:

Medical condition (heart surgery) was mentioned but not connected to custodial risk or Article 21 (right to life).
Section 41A was mentioned, but no clear prayer asking the court to direct the IO to issue the notice.

This matters because these are missed opportunities. If you raise a health concern, link it to why custody would be dangerous. If you mention section 41A, go further and ask the court for relief under it.

We rewrote those paragraphs to show why the health condition justifies anticipatory bail and inserted a more direct prayer for relief regarding notice under section 41A CrPC.

Issue 5: Formatting and legal style

ChatGPT pointed out that there is:

No proper heading: should say “IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI”.
The cause title lacked party labels: “Applicant/Accused” vs “Respondent/State”.
No verification clause at the end.

This matters because these are basic but essential formalities. Skipping them makes your draft look amateurish.

We added a formal cause title, fixed party labels, and inserted this verification clause:

Verification

I, Ankit Aggarwal, the Applicant above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 15 of this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this __ day of _____, 2024.

ChatGPT also suggested some language improvements.

“Sole breadwinner” → too dramatic → try “primary financial support”.
“Categorically denied” → improve tone to “…which the Applicant categorically denies as being baseless and motivated.”

Yes, judges do prefer measured, respectful language. But here, this would not apply. Both terms are correct, but the usage of “sole breadwinner” is correct, and you will need to apply your judgment here.

Final result: a sharper, cleaner, more persuasive bail application.

As you can see, AI picked up more issues than we initially realised. Using ChatGPT as a reviewer allowed us to catch small but important issues. It was like having a meticulous junior sitting next to you, quietly flagging everything you missed when your eyes glazed over.

And that is the point. AI does not just write, it reads. It questions. It tidies.

Use it well, and you may find your final draft has fewer red-inked surprises when the court reads it.

Also, AI is programmed to be a perfect assistant for you. So it will always ask for a follow-up. Here, it asked if we wanted the final draft with the changes made. We said yes.

Below is the final draft with the changes made.

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ankit Aggarwal
S/o Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal

R/o A-45, Saket, New Delhi – 110017

…Applicant/Accused

Versus

State (NCT of Delhi)

…Respondent/State

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

That the Applicant is filing the present application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 378/2024 dated 17/08/2024, registered at Police Station Saket, New Delhi, under sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
That the Applicant is a law-abiding citizen of India, permanently residing at A-45, Saket, New Delhi. He has been employed as a Software Engineer with Genpact, Gurgaon, since 2013 and holds a respectable position in society.
That the Applicant got married to Sumita (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) in 2003. The couple has a son and has been residing with the Applicant’s parents at the above-mentioned address since their marriage.
That on 17/08/2024, the Complainant filed a complaint at Saket Police Station against the Applicant, alleging offences under sections 498A and 506 of the IPC. A copy of the FIR is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-1.
That the allegations made in the said FIR are false, fabricated and baseless. They have been made with the intent to harass and humiliate the Applicant and his family.
That the Complainant has alleged that the Applicant made derogatory remarks about her physical appearance and took her belongings, including a gold necklace, mobile phone, and laptop, and threw them away. These accusations are categorically denied by the Applicant and are motivated and devoid of truth.
That the Applicant apprehends arrest due to the undue influence likely to be exercised by the Complainant’s brother, Mr. Rahul Tyagi, who is a Deputy Superintendent in the Delhi Police. The Applicant fears that such influence may lead to arbitrary action and wrongful arrest.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273, has clearly laid down that arrests in offences under section 498A IPC should not be made in a routine manner and that the procedure under sections 41 and 41A CrPC should be strictly followed.
That the Applicant has deep roots in society, no prior criminal record, and is not a flight risk.
That the Applicant is the sole breadwinner for his aged parents and minor son.
That the Applicant underwent a bypass surgery in December 2023 and continues to require post-operative care and a stress-free environment. His medical records are annexed as Annexure A-2.
That the Applicant undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court.
That the Applicant undertakes not to tamper with evidence or influence any witnesses.
That the Applicant is ready and willing to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court.
That the Applicant has not previously applied for anticipatory bail in the present matter.

PRAYER

In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) Grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant in FIR No. 378/2024 dated 17/08/2024, registered at Police Station Saket, New Delhi, under sections 498A and 506 IPC; and

b) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Filed by:

Ritika Sharma
Advocate for the Applicant
Chamber No. 204, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi
Contact: +91-98XXXXXXXX

Place: New Delhi
Date: 07/06/2025

VERIFICATION

I, Ankit Aggarwal, the Applicant above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 15 of the above application are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this 07th day of June, 2025.

Ankit Aggarwal (Applicant)

You can find the conversation with ChatGPT here.

Things to keep in mind

Before you even get to drafting a bail application with AI, you need to be clear about certain things.

Strategy, substance & smart use of AI tools

When it comes to drafting anticipatory bail applications, whether under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or section 482 of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, strategy matters just as much as structure.

And that is where AI becomes more than just a writing assistant. It becomes part of your thinking process.

Before we even get to the AI prompts and edits, let us start with the core legal decision:

Which court do you approach?

Both the Sessions Court and the High Court are legally competent, but it is legally prudent to approach the Sessions Court first. Because if the High Court denies bail to you with adverse findings, you cannot then go knock on the doors of the Sessions Court on the same grounds. The vice-versa is not possible.

So, before you ask AI to identify errors, you need to be clear about the legal aspects of which court should have jurisdiction.

Now, here is a classic error many junior lawyers make, and it is one AI will not fix unless you guide it correctly.

They end up arguing the entire criminal case inside the bail application.

Let me repeat that.

The anticipatory bail application is not the place to prove guilt or innocence. It is about risk. Will the accused abscond? Is custodial interrogation necessary? Might they tamper with evidence? That is what the judge wants to know.

A well-drafted application must stay focused on this.

Key persuasive factor: risk of influence or bias

In our case example, one of the most persuasive grounds is the alleged influence of the complainant’s relative, who is a serving DSP. This raises a legitimate apprehension of bias, misuse of power, or potential for undue arrest, and it must be clearly but tactfully argued in the bail application. When we fed these facts to Claude, the AI was able to pick up on this concern and reframe it as a constitutional issue – the risk of wrongful arrest, misuse of state machinery, and the need for judicial protection.

And that is the power of smart prompting.

Remember:

The court is not adjudicating guilt or innocence at this stage.

It is only considering whether custodial interrogation is necessary and whether the applicant is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or misuse liberty if granted anticipatory bail.

Mandatory reference: Arnish Kumar v. State of UP

Another crucial legal point that must be included in all anticipatory bail applications, especially those arising from Section 498A IPC complaints, is drawn from the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Arnish Kumar vs. State of UP.

In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that arrest is not automatic in matrimonial cases. Police must first serve a section 41A CrPC notice to appear before the Investigating Officer. Arrest without complying with this mandate is unlawful.

Accordingly, it is important to affirmatively state in the bail application that no notice under section 41A CrPC has been served so far. This omission can strengthen the case for pre-arrest protection.

This is where a thoughtful AI tool like Claude can be helpful, it incorporated this legal argument seamlessly when prompted. ChatGPT, in contrast, may require more structured inputs or step-by-step prompting to reach the same depth, though both can produce excellent drafts with the right guidance.

Standard declarations to include

Every anticipatory bail application must include certain standard declarations, including but not limited to:

Whether any previous bail application has been filed.
That the applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigation.
That the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents (if applicable).
That the applicant will not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
That the applicant undertakes to appear before the Court/Investigating Officer as and when required.

These declarations may appear routine, but they form the bedrock of judicial discretion in anticipatory bail proceedings.

Conclusion: AI will not argue your case, but it can sharpen it

At the end of the day, bail drafting is both a legal skill and a storytelling exercise. You are persuading a judge to see urgency, fairness, and constitutional need, all within a few pages.

What AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT offer is not shortcuts, but clarity.

They help you spot what you may overlook in the rush, such as gaps, inconsistencies, tone issues, and even weak formatting. Used wisely, they become your silent second pair of eyes. They do not replace your judgment, but they give it structure and support.

The key is to remain a lawyer. You feed the facts. You set the tone. You review the output with a purpose.

So the next time you finish drafting a bail application, before you send it off, ask ChatGPT or Claude one simple question:

“If you were the judge, what would you find missing here?”

You may be surprised how much stronger your draft becomes.