ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The sole question that arises under the present case is as to the applicability of Section 22(5) of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act (in short, “the Act”). The said Section reads as under :- “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the accused shall not be granted bail if it is noticed by the Court that he was on bail in an offence under this Act or under any other Act on the date of the offence in question.” 3. Applying the aforesaid provision, the High Court denied bail to the appellants on the sole ground that they were already granted bail for other offences. 4. This Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and others, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 5 , at Page No. 29, struck down a pari materia provision, which is in identical terms, under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). It was held by this Court that the expression “or under any other Act” was unconstitutional. 5. This being the case, we have to proceed on the footing that the same expression contained in Section 22(5) does not exist. This being the case and it being clear that the appellants were granted bail under IPC or Arms Act offences, Section 22(5) of the Act would not come in the way of granting bail. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to be released on bail forthwith, subject to the conditions already set out. Ordered accordingly. The impugned Judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed.