Section 88 bond governs when accused was not arrested before complaint; arrest is unnecessary.

Where an accused had not been arrested before the complaint was filed, arrest was not required and the proper course was to direct furnishing of a bond under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court treated the issue as governed by an earlier decision that had already settled this position, and the impugned order could not be sustained. The operative principle is that pre-complaint arrest is unnecessary in such circumstances, and compliance by bond under Section 88 is sufficient.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused person, who had not been arrested before filing of the complaint, was required to be arrested or could be directed only to furnish a bond under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The question of law was treated as already covered by a prior decision of the Court, which had held that where the accused had not been arrested before the complaint was filed, the proper course was only to require a bond under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that arrest was not necessary. Applying that settled position, the impugned order could not stand.

Conclusion: The requirement of arrest was negatived and the appellant was directed only to furnish a bond under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: If an accused has not been arrested prior to the filing of the complaint, the process contemplated is furnishing of a bond under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and not arrest.

---