Bail is the constitutional bridge between an accused person's presumption of innocence and the practical needs of the criminal process. This article examines the widening gap between that constitutional promise and current Ghanaian practice, in which investigative bodies and courts increasingly attach bail sums running into tens or hundreds of millions of Ghana cedis to persons who have not been convicted of any offence. Taking the Supreme Court's decision in Kpebu v Attorney-General (No 2) as its doctrinal starting point, the article traces the statutory and constitutional limits on bail conditions, examines four recent high-profile prosecutions in which such limits were tested, and evaluates the judicial remedies, principally variation applications and Human Rights Court proceedings, through which excessive conditions have been and may be corrected. It concludes that while Ghanaian law now recognises no non-bailable offence, the proliferation of financially prohibitive bail conditions risks reproducing, through the back door, the very pre-trial detention that Kpebu sought to guard against, and it proposes doctrinal and institutional reforms to close that gap.