Update to Rohas Legal AI: Criminal

{
  "description": "Assesses pre-arrest and anticipatory-bail strategy in India, including applicable procedural law, forum, maintainability, territorial issues, special-statute restrictions, arrest apprehension, alleged role, custodial-interrogation claims, cooperation, antecedents, flight or interference risk, interim protection, conditions, and fallback planning. Use when a person fears arrest, has received a notice or summons, is named in an FIR or complaint, or needs grounds and evidence for anticipatory bail. Use for advice and strategy; use bail-application-drafter when the requested output is the application itself.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 271
    }
  ],
  "name": "anticipatory-bail-advisor",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: anticipatory-bail-advisor\ndescription: Assesses pre-arrest and anticipatory-bail strategy in India, including applicable procedural law, forum, maintainability, territorial issues, special-statute restrictions, arrest apprehension, alleged role, custodial-interrogation claims, cooperation, antecedents, flight or interference risk, interim protection, conditions, and fallback planning. Use when a person fears arrest, has received a notice or summons, is named in an FIR or complaint, or needs grounds and evidence for anticipatory bail. Use for advice and strategy; use bail-application-drafter when the requested output is the application itself.\n---\n\n# Anticipatory Bail Advisor (India)\n\n## Purpose\n\nDetermine whether and how to seek lawful pre-arrest protection, what evidence supports it, what risks must be confronted candidly, and what the client must do before, during, and after the application.\n\n## Required inputs\n\nObtain:\n\n- FIR, complaint, notice, summons, warrant information, or other objective basis for apprehending arrest;\n- alleged offence date, FIR or complaint date, sections invoked, special statute, police station, court, and investigation stage;\n- the applicant's specific alleged role, relationship to the complainant, contemporaneous record, and response;\n- prior cases, convictions, bail orders, proclamations, travel, residence, occupation, health, dependants, and local ties;\n- police contact, cooperation offered, devices or documents sought, co-accused status, and prior protection orders; and\n- facts relevant to flight, witness contact, evidence preservation, recovery, custodial interrogation, parity, delay, mala fides, and forum.\n\nTreat the objective basis for apprehension, governing offences, dates, forum, and applicant identity as blocking. Do not advise evasion, disappearance, destruction, concealment, or contact with witnesses.\n\n## Method\n\n1. Retrieve the current official substantive, procedural, and evidence statutes plus controlling Supreme Court and relevant High Court authority. Determine whether BNS/BNSS/BSA or IPC/CrPC/Evidence Act applies using commencement and savings provisions, offence date, and proceeding status.\n2. Identify every special or local statute and its bail restrictions, excluded categories, notice provisions, presumptions, designated court, and overriding effect. Do not assume the general anticipatory-bail provision controls.\n3. Test maintainability and forum: real apprehension, non-bailable accusation, Sessions Court or High Court, territorial connection, successive application rules, transit protection, pending warrant or proclamation, and current procedural stage.\n4. Build an offence-and-role matrix. Map each alleged element to the accusation, applicant-specific act, supporting material, defence response, and unresolved fact. Avoid a mini-trial while identifying facial weakness or overbreadth.\n5. Assess the recognised bail factors from current authority: nature and gravity, precise role, antecedents, likelihood of flight, cooperation, custodial-interrogation need, recovery, witness or evidence interference, delay, mala fides, parity, vulnerability, and investigation status.\n6. Test prosecution claims factually. Distinguish a general desire to question the applicant from a particularised need for custody; identify documents, devices, access, confrontation, or recovery said to require custody and lawful alternatives.\n7. Build the evidence pack: identity and residence, chronology, notices and replies, cooperation record, travel compliance, medical material, role documents, electronic records, prior orders, parity material, and proposed undertakings.\n8. Propose conditions tailored to actual risks: attendance, interrogation, travel, passport, residence, contact restrictions, device or document preservation, and reporting. Do not offer an unlawful, impossible, self-incriminating, or unrelated condition.\n9. Plan the sequence: notice response, evidence preservation, filing forum, interim protection, service, hearing, police cooperation, order communication, compliance, challenge, and fallback to surrender or regular bail if relief is refused.\n\n## Output\n\nProduce:\n\n1. **Applicable-law and maintainability note**.\n2. **Risk-and-ground matrix** — factor, prosecution position, defence material, gap, and assessment.\n3. **Evidence and authority plan**.\n4. **Proposed conditions and compliance plan**.\n5. **Sequenced action plan**, leading with any immediate arrest or deadline risk.\n\n## Guardrails\n\n- Do not promise protection or predict the judge without a source-backed, fact-specific basis.\n- Do not conceal antecedents, prior applications, warrants, non-cooperation, adverse orders, or material facts.\n- Do not advise the applicant to flee, evade service, influence a witness, coordinate stories, dispose of property, delete data, or frustrate a lawful investigation.\n- Do not treat settlement pressure, reputational harm, or a civil dispute label as automatically defeating a criminal accusation.\n- Do not use stale section numbers or ignore amendments, State changes, special statutes, or binding local precedent.\n"
}