One of the fundamental rules that guide decisions during criminal justice administration is thernpresumption that a suspect is innocent until his guilt has been established by a court ofrncompetent jurisdiction. This presumption is enshrined in the FDRE constitution as fundamentalrnhuman rights. Consequently, the rights of suspects remain largely protected during the processrnof criminal justice administration, from arrest to conviction. Full and non-discriminatoryrnrealization of rights of human beings during criminal proceedings requires administration ofrncriminal justice in full compliance with human rights standards. This research examines thernConstitutional, Procedural and Judicial significance of bail in criminal justice administration inrnthe Federal Courts of Ethiopia. Thus, the practice in the federal courts of ensuring protection ofrnrights to be presumed innocent and to be released on bail as an element of fair trial guaranteesrnare examined. The research therefore has analyzed the factors that influence bail decisions andrnjust administration of bail in Federal Courts, with emphasis on laws and practices on criminalrnproceedings of corruption offences. With a view to inform the study with evidences from thernpractice the study besides to the legal framework has examined cases and proceedings ofrncorruption offences and investigated the enforcement of essential bail rights in the course of thernproceedings. Based on these investigations the study has found that the practice in the federalrncourts seen diminishing the protection that should be given to fundamental guarantees of personrnaccused/suspected of corruption offense. Firstly, article 4 (1) of the revised anti-corruptionrnproclamation which provides that an arrested person suspected of a corruption offensernpunishable for more than ten years shall not be released on bail has denied the court itsrnimportant role in regards to protection of the rights to release on bail and to be presumedrninnocent of an accused person. This opens a space for arbitrary application of the commissionâ€™srnpower and prevents the court from playing its role by examining seriousness of the offense, thernnature of evidence and behavior of the suspect. This observation is further confirmed by analysisrnof cases examined by this study which shown that suspects were detained for longer period andrnfinally found innocent. In another note the study also found that article 5 (2) of the samernproclamation undermines the right of suspect because it automatically authorizes suspension ofrna lower court decision to release the suspect on bail based only on filing of appeal by thernprosecutor or investigator. This coupled with the fact that the appeal process usually takesrnlonger time it results in punishing suspects before conviction. Moreover, the fact that article 7rnIVrn(4) of the proclamation mandatorily provides that matters related to bail shall be tried only byrnthe court that has jurisdiction to hear corruption offence cases makes realization of the right tornbail difficult. This is so due to the fact that federal courts are not permanently present in all partsrnof the country and hears cases on a circuit court arrangement which in between the suspect facesrnlengthy detention before trial. Owing to this the study found that the current legislativernframework and practice has weakness in dealing with right to bail of suspects of corruptionrnoffense. Thus the legislative framework and the practice of federal courts in connection to bailrnrights of person suspected of corruption offence needs to be revised so that it becomesrncompatible to the constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.