It was really wrong to have kept the Applicant in custody since March, 2010. That was in contravention of Section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution. Be that as it may, the State introduced a twist in this matter when the Counter Affidavit was brought to my attention. Paragraph 3 of the Counter Affidavit states: “(a) That the applicant is accused of having committed the offence of rape against one Hajanding Jawla” “(b) That the State has since concluded process for the arraignment of the applicant before the High Court. With the above brought to the Court’s attention, it will amount to an act of indiscretion not to defer my Ruling. I have read the affidavits filed in this matter and listened to the submissions of both Counsel. The question to answer, in my view, is whether, in the circumstances bail should be granted. Ext. “A” to the Further Affidavit by the State is an annexure; it is not a charge before me. I say this because, Counsel for the Applicant, in her Further Reply on points of law submitted that “it is not an indictment property filed before this Court”. All originating processes including an information are filed, not in a particular Court, but in the Registry of the High Court. The Principal 7