motu deferred the Ruling on the bail application. She submitted the affidavit in support of the Motion by the State is bare and does not support the reliefs sought. She said she was served with a Counter Affidavit and Further Counter Affidavit against her own application only that morning and that it is the Further Counter Affidavit that has an Exhibit which, Counsel submitted, appeared to be a charge against the Applicant for Rape; and that as far as she is concerned as Counsel, the punishment for Rape is life imprisonment and that there is nothing in the both Counter Affidavits that can take away the Applicant’s constitutional right of bail pending trial of the charge against him. Counsel submitted that she differed with the criteria for the grant of bail as presented by the State Counsel especially, the probability of guilt and the strength of evidence against the accused. This is because, Counsel submitted, the Court is not in a position to determine that there is a probability of guilt or that the evidence is strong against the accused person at the stage. Again, she submitted, there is no evidence that the accused, if granted bail, was likely to interfere with the prosecution’s witnesses. Counsel submitted that the criteria to be considered is whether the offence is bailable, and submitted that by virtue of the Constitutional provision the offence is bailable. What is now left, Counsel concluded, is what conditions the Court will impose on the applicant to ensure that he appears in Court for his trial; that there is no evidence that he will jump bail if granted bail. 5