JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking the issuance of Habeas Corpus and quashment, which are involving the challenge against a detention order passed against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAP Act), are as follows: “(i) To issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order direction directing the respondents to produce the ‘detenue’ (sic) by name Shamsudheen, aged 46 years S/o Abdul Rahman Karumanchala, Puthunagaram, Palakkad District, before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty. (ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order direction quashing Exhibits.P2 and P4 Orders dated passed against the detenue. (sic) (iii) Any other reliefs which may be prayed for from time to time.” 2. Heard Shri U. Jayakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu involved in this case, who has been ordered to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAP Act). 4. In the instant case, the District Police Chief, Palakkad, has submitted Ext.P1 report dated 25.03.2022, recommending to the 1st respondent-District Collector and District Magistrate, Palakkad (authorised detaining authority) that, in view of the details furnished therein, it is a fit case to issue order, preventively detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the above Act, with a view to prevent him from committing further anti-social activities, as envisaged in Section 2(a) of the above Act. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent-detaining authority has, after consideration, issued Ext.P2 detention order dated 17.05.2022, under Section 3(1) of the Act, ordering for the detention of the detenu. The details of the three cases, taken into account by the 1st respondent-detaining authority, in the issuance of Ext.P2 detention order are stated in the said detention order and the same has also been extracted in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent (State Government), more particularly in Para 7 thereof on pages 4 and 5 thereof. The details of the three cases, taken into account by the 1st respondent-detaining authority, in the issuance of Ext.P2 detention order are stated in the said detention order and the same has also been extracted in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent (State Government), more particularly in Para 7 thereof on pages 4 and 5 thereof. Since there are no factual disputes regarding the details of the said three cases, the same are extracted from Para 7 on pages 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit of R2, which read as follows: “(i) Crime No. 975/2020 of Pudunagaram Police Station u/s. 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act (Date of Occurrence 26.09.2020): The case was that on 26.09.2020, at Virinjapaadam, 1.1 kg of Ganja was recovered from autorickshaw driven by the detenue (sic). The petitioner is the only accused in the case and was given conditional bail in the case. The case was pending trial before the Hon'ble Sessions Court. Palakkad as SC 172/2021, at the time of issue of detention order. (ii) Crime No. 701/2021 of Pudunagaram Police Station u/s 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act (Date of Occurrence: 29.10.2021): The case was that between 29.10.2021 at 6.30 P.M. at Kaarattukalambu, the detenue was found in possession of 30g of Ganja in his pocket. The petitioner is the only accused in the case and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000 under NDPS Act and Rs.2000 under KP Act by the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur in CC No. 691/2021. (iii) Crime No. 40/2022 of Kollengode Police Station u/s 20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act (Date of Occurrence : 22.01.2022): The case was that on 22.01.2022, at Bus Stand Road Junction, Kollengode, the detenu and others were trafficking 4.060 kg Ganja on motorcycle for selling it. The petitioner is the second accused in the case and was given conditional bail in the case. The case is under investigation.” 5. Further it appears that, in pursuance to Ext.P2 detention order dated 17.05.2022, report was submitted by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent-Government on 17.05.2022. Ext.P2 order was executed by the arrest and detention of the detenu on 19.05.2022. Thereafter, proposal was submitted by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, after execution, for approval of Ext.P2 detention order on 24.05.2022. The respondent-Government has issued order approving Ext.P2 detention order on 27.05.2022, as per Ext.P3. Ext.P2 order was executed by the arrest and detention of the detenu on 19.05.2022. Thereafter, proposal was submitted by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, after execution, for approval of Ext.P2 detention order on 24.05.2022. The respondent-Government has issued order approving Ext.P2 detention order on 27.05.2022, as per Ext.P3. The Government has, thereafter, referred the matter for the opinion of the Advisory Board on 30.05.2022. The report of the Advisory Board was received by the Government on 30.06.2022, recommending that there is sufficient cause for the Government to confirm Ext.P2 detention order. In pursuance thereof, the Government has issued Ext.P5 order dated 30.07.2022, confirming Ext.P2 detention order. Further, it appears that the last prejudicial activity (date of commission of the last offence), in this case was on 22.01.2022. The period between the last prejudicial activity and the date of Ext.P2 detention order is 3 months and 26 days (i.e. for the period from 22.01.2022 to 17.05.2022). The time gap between the date of Ext.P2 detention order and its execution is two days (i.e. the period from 17.05.2022 to 19.05.2022). There are no serious disputes that the detenu will satisfy the definitional parameters of “known goonda” as per Section 2(o) read with Section 2(j) of the Act, either by taking into account Clause (ii) of Section 2(o) or by taking into account Clause (i) of Section 2(o) of the Act. Hence, there is no necessity for this Court to get into the details, as to whether or not the definitional parameters of Section 2 (o) of the Act are satisfied in the instant case. 6. Two contentions are mainly urged by Shri U. Jayakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his case that the impugned Ext.P2 detention order is liable for quashment. The first contention is that there has been unexplained and inordinate delay between the last prejudicial activity (22.01.2022) and the date of issuance of Ext.P2 detention order (17.05.2022) and that therefore, the impugned detention order (Ext.P2) is liable for interdiction by this Court. 7. The second contention urged by him is that there is no worthwhile consideration, as regards the sufficiency or otherwise of the bail conditions, in respect of the bail order granted to the detenu/accused, in relation to the third case, in Ext.P2 detention order and that therefore, the impugned detention order is liable for interference. 8. 7. The second contention urged by him is that there is no worthwhile consideration, as regards the sufficiency or otherwise of the bail conditions, in respect of the bail order granted to the detenu/accused, in relation to the third case, in Ext.P2 detention order and that therefore, the impugned detention order is liable for interference. 8. We will deal with the contentions separately. Contention (a): The specific contention in that regard is that the last offence, said to be committed by the detenu, is on 22.01.2022, whereas Ext.P2 detention order has been issued only on 17.05.2022, and that the delay between the last prejudicial activity and the order of detention, as per Ext.P2, is 3 months and 26 days, and the said delay is inordinate and has not been explained and that therefore, it snaps the live and proximate link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose and objective of the detention order. So, it is argued that the impugned Ext.P2 detention order is liable for interference. 9. Per contra, Shri K.A. Anas, the learned Prosecutor, would oppose the said contention and would submit that it is true that the last prejudicial activity (date on which the last offence has been committed) is 22.01.2022. But that the detenu/accused was arrested and remanded in respect of the involvement in that case on 22.01.2022 itself and he was released on bail only on 24.03.2022. Thereafter, the Sponsoring Authority has submitted Ext.P1 report dated 25.03.2022, recommending to the 1st respondent-detaining authority that it is a fit case to invoke the subjective satisfaction, in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act, to preventively detain the detenu, as otherwise he is very likely to commit further prejudicial anti-social activities, as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the Act. The Sponsoring Authority and the detaining authority were under the bona fide impression that, in view of the contravention of the NDPS Act, the detenu/accused is not likely to secure bail in regard to his involvement in the third case and that therefore, they had not taken any immediate action. But when it was brought to notice that the accused had secured bail on 24.03.2022, they had acted with all diligence and vigilance, inasmuch as the Sponsoring Authority gave the report on 25.03.2022 and, after due consideration, the detaining authority had issued Ext.P2 detention order on 17.05.2022, after considering various relevant aspects. But when it was brought to notice that the accused had secured bail on 24.03.2022, they had acted with all diligence and vigilance, inasmuch as the Sponsoring Authority gave the report on 25.03.2022 and, after due consideration, the detaining authority had issued Ext.P2 detention order on 17.05.2022, after considering various relevant aspects. In that regard, the learned Prosecutor would place reliance on the decision of this Court in Vishnuja vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2018 (1) KLT 978 (DB) : 2018 (1) KHC 933 (DB) Paras 13 to 15. 10. After hearing both sides, we note that the date of incident, in regard to the last case (last prejudicial activity), is on 22.01.2022, in regard to the involvement of the petitioner for having possessed 4.060 kgs of ganja and he was booked under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, the detenu/accused was immediately arrested and remanded, in that case, on 22.01.2022 itself. It is much later that bail order dated 24.03.2022 was issued in that case, thereby the detenu/accused was released on bail on 24.03.2022. Immediately thereafter, the Sponsoring Agency has submitted report dated 25.03.2022, which led to the issuance of Ext.P2 detention order on 17.05.2022. 11. After hearing both sides, the above said explanation of the respondents appears to be reasonable and plausible, inasmuch as they were under the bona fide impression that, since the accused was remanded to judicial custody on 22.01.2022, there may not be any great necessity to consider the extreme measure of preventive detention. Immediately after coming to know that the accused was released on bail on 24.03.2022, the Sponsoring Agency, with all diligence, has submitted the report on 25.03.2022, making the recommendation to the 1st respondent-detaining authority to consider the preventive detention action, in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-authorised detaining authority has issued detention order on 17.05.2022. 12. In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vishnuja's case (supra), the last prejudicial activity in that case was on 28.08.2016. Thereafter, the accused was taken into judicial custody and he was enlarged on bail only on 18.11.2016. It is thereafter that the Sponsoring Agency has sent report dated 27.03.2017 to the detaining authority, which led to the issuance of the impugned detention order rendered by the detaining authority on 02.05.2017. Thereafter, the accused was taken into judicial custody and he was enlarged on bail only on 18.11.2016. It is thereafter that the Sponsoring Agency has sent report dated 27.03.2017 to the detaining authority, which led to the issuance of the impugned detention order rendered by the detaining authority on 02.05.2017. The Division Bench of this Court held that the delay in that case, between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order, was duly explained and the same was not inordinate, so as to vitiate the detention proceedings, inasmuch as the accused was enlarged on bail only on 18.11.2016 and in regard to his involvement in the last prejudicial activity, the Sponsoring Agency had made the recommendations on 27.03.2017 and in pursuance thereof, the detaining authority has issued the impugned detention order, in that case, on 02.05.2017. It is pertinent to refer to the contents of Paras 13 to 15 of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vishnuja's case (supra), which reads as follows: “13. There is no doubt that last prejudicial activity alleged against Shri Aneesh was committed on 28.08.2016. However, it is also to be noted that he was immediately thereafter taken into judicial custody and that he was enlarged on bail only on 18.11.2016. Obviously, the police Authorities have been investigating the crime and such proceedings would certainly take some time to be proceeded and concluded as per the law. The issue, in such perspective, is whether the request made by the District Police Chief, (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram to detain Shri Aneesh under the Preventive Detention, initiated through his letter dated 27.03.2017, was too much delayed so as to snap its live link with the prejudicial activity alleged against him. 14. We see that a counter affidavit has been placed on record by the first respondent-State of Kerala offering their explications as to how and why this delay was occasioned. The specific asserverations in this regard is available in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, which we deem it apposite to extract, so as to enable its reading as pleaded: “10. The last crime committed by the detenue was on 28.08.2016. The detenue was arrested in connection with this crime and he was in judicial custody till he was enlarged on bail on 18.11.2016. A proceedings under S.107 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the detenue in which he had executed a bond on 03.05.2016. The last crime committed by the detenue was on 28.08.2016. The detenue was arrested in connection with this crime and he was in judicial custody till he was enlarged on bail on 18.11.2016. A proceedings under S.107 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the detenue in which he had executed a bond on 03.05.2016. It was after execution of the bond that the detenu got involved in the last crime. It is true that the proposal was made by the sponsoring authority only on 27.03/2017. The delay for submitting the proposal was that sponsoring authority was collecting materials regarding the involvement of the detenue in the criminal cases which are in plenty and are covering three police station limits. It is submitted that Sponsoring authority had taken adequate measures to control the criminal activities of the detenu. Despite these, the detenu continued his criminal activities including robbery, murder, attempt to commit murder and house breaking etc. In such circumstances the detaining authority had no other option, but to invoke the provisions of the Act. The proposal was made by the sponsoring authority only after it was satisfied that the detenue could not be expected to be controlled or his anti-social activities prevented through ordinary, constabulary or magisterial procedures like proceedings under S.107 Cr.P.C. The proposal of the Sponsoring authority culminated in the detention order dated 02.05.2017 which was duly executed on 06.05.2017.” 15. We are satisfied with the explanation offered by the competent Authorities in the counter affidavit and going by the specific pleadings as above extracted, we do not think that the so called delay of three months occasioned after the petitioner's husband was released from jail on bail will be sufficient ground to release him to question Ext.P4 order, especially in view of the two precedents that we have already referred to above.” 13. In the instant case, it is true that the date of commission of the third case was on 22.01.2022. The accused was immediately, thereafter, arrested and remanded on 22.01.2022 and was released on bail only on 24.03.2022. So, the time period between the enlargement of the accused on bail, on 24.03.2022, and the detention order is only 1 month and 23 days. Hence, going by the judicial perspective taken in Vishnuja's case (supra), the delay involved in this case is much less and has been properly and reasonably explained by the respondents. So, the time period between the enlargement of the accused on bail, on 24.03.2022, and the detention order is only 1 month and 23 days. Hence, going by the judicial perspective taken in Vishnuja's case (supra), the delay involved in this case is much less and has been properly and reasonably explained by the respondents. Hence, we are not in a position to countenance the first contention raised by the petitioner and we reject the same. Contention (b): 14. The next contention is that the detenu was released on bail due to his involvement in the third and the last case, as per bail order dated 24.03.2022 (copy of which has been produced at pages 137 to 140 of the paper book of this case), which has been supplied to the detenu along with all the other relevant documents. The specific argument raised by Shri U. Jayakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the efficacy or sufficiency or otherwise of the bail conditions, imposed by the competent criminal court in the said bail order dated 24.03.2022, has not been properly considered and weighed by the detaining authority in Ext.P2 detention order and that non-consideration of the efficacy or otherwise of the above said bail conditions, in regard to the bail order in the third case, would be fatal and the same would vitiate in the detention proceedings. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decisions of this Court in Sreeja Jayaprakash vs. District Collector/District Magistrate, Kottayam and Others, MANU/KE/3794/2018, Para 10, wherein it has been held that the detaining authority should have considered the bail condition that was imposed by the court and should have given an explanation as to why that was not sufficient to prevent the detenu from getting involved in any further crime, and that, in that case, consequent to the last prejudicial act, the detenu has not been involved in any other crime, and that the failure on the part of the detaining authority in that regard would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention and accordingly, the impugned detention order in that case was found to be vitiated. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shajitha Suneer vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2019 (3) KLT 388 (DB) : 2019 (3) KHC 453 (DB). 15. Per contra, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, would urge that the above said contention of the petitioner is not tenable and that the facts of this case would be covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Anita Antony vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (4) KLT 271 , Para 12. 16. After hearing both sides, we note that, altogether, three cases are cited in both the Sponsoring Authority's report as well as in Ext.P2 detention order. All the three cases involved are in contravention of the NDPS Act and one in which the detenu/accused had pleaded guilty and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The Sponsoring Authority has recommended that the said case need not necessarily be taken into account, as the other two cases would be sufficient to meet the definitional parameters of “known goonda” in terms of Clause (ii) of Section 2(o) of the Act. A reading of Ext.P2 detention order would give an indication that the detaining authority has taken into account all the three cases. In that regard, the learned Prosecutor has submitted that, going by the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sameena Beevi vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2014 (4) KLT 874 (DB) : 2014 (4) KHC 695 (DB), a case, in which the accused has pleaded guilty and has, thus, suffered conviction and sentence, could also be taken into account, for the purpose of reckoning as to whether the party concerned would fulfill the definitional parameters of “known goonda” in terms of Section 2(o) of the KAAP Act. The other two cases, by itself alone, would justify the definitional parameters of “known goonda” going by the provisions in Clause (ii) of Section 2(o) of the Act. All the three cases are those involved in contravention of the NDPS Act. 17. Going by the chronological order, the first case was in relation to the involvement of the detenu in Crime No. 975 of 2020 of Pudunagaram Police Station, Palakkad District, where he was found to have possessed 1.1 kgs of ganja. All the three cases are those involved in contravention of the NDPS Act. 17. Going by the chronological order, the first case was in relation to the involvement of the detenu in Crime No. 975 of 2020 of Pudunagaram Police Station, Palakkad District, where he was found to have possessed 1.1 kgs of ganja. The FIR in that case was registered on 26.09.2020 and he was arrested and remanded and was later released on bail on 27.11.2020. The second case is the one in Crime No. 701 of 2021 of Pudunagaram Police Station, Palakkad, which is a small quantity NDPS case and the quantity of ganja, said to be possessed by the detenu, was 30 grams. Therein, the crime was registered on 29.10.2021 and the accused was released on bail. Thereafter, he has pleaded guilty and he was convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on 10.12.2021. The third and the last case is the one as per Crime No. 40 of 2022, of Kollengode Police Station, Palakkad District, wherein the quantity of ganja seized from him was 4.060 kgs. Dealing with a similar situation, the Division Bench of this Court, in Para 12 of the decision in Anita Antony's case (supra) has noted that the contention therein was that the detenu had fully complied with the bail conditions in the last crime and the argument was that the subjective satisfaction, to initiate proceedings under the KAAP Act, was vitiated, inasmuch as the efficacy of the bail conditions were not duly considered by the detaining authority. The Division Bench held, in Para No. 12 thereof, that their Lordships cannot endorse the said submission, since the last prejudicial activity, reckoned by the detaining authority, is the fourth crime and in all the previous crimes, while being enlarged on bail, the detenu was put on a similar condition, that he should not indulge in any criminal activity while on bail and that this condition has been contemptuously violated by the detenu, as is established by the subsequent crimes, including the last one in the year 2021. Hence, it was held that the compliance of the bail condition in the last crime cannot be gainsaid by the detenu, to assign the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which is otherwise established by the witnesses on record. Hence, it was held that the compliance of the bail condition in the last crime cannot be gainsaid by the detenu, to assign the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which is otherwise established by the witnesses on record. It will be pertinent to refer to Para 12 of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Anita Antony's case (supra) which reads as follows: “12. The second contention is a claim that the detenu had scrupulously followed the bail conditions in the last crime [Crime No. 460 of 2021 of Alappuzha North Police Station] and therefore, the subjective satisfaction to initiate proceedings under the KAA(P)A is vitiated. We cannot endorse the said submission of the learned counsel. As rightly pointed out by the leaned Government Pleader, the last prejudicial activity reckoned by the detaining authority is the fourth crime and in all previous crimes, while being enlarged on bail, the detenu was put on similar condition that he shall not indulge in any criminal activity while on bail. This condition has been contemptuously violated by the detenu, as is established by the subsequent crimes, including the last one of the year 2021. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the compliance with the bail condition in the last crime cannot be gainsaid by the detenu, to assail the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which is otherwise established by materials on record.” 18. In the instant case, all the cases, in which the detenu has been involved are those in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. Going through the prescription of the Act, the detenu would satisfy not only the definitional parameters of Section 2(o) (known goonda) of the Act, but also Section 2(i) which deals with “drug offender”. Repeatedly, on all the cases, he could secure bail and one of the bail conditions was that he shall not commit any offence while on bail. In evaluating the contentions of this nature, the important perspective is to adjudge the same from the facts and circumstances of each case. In all the previous cases, the accused has violated the bail conditions. The matter will have to be duly taken note of, more so, particularly taking into account that the case involved is in contravention of the NDPS Act. In all the previous cases, the accused has violated the bail conditions. The matter will have to be duly taken note of, more so, particularly taking into account that the case involved is in contravention of the NDPS Act. Further, a reading of Ext.P2 detention order, given on page 200 of the paper book, would clearly show that the detaining authority has clearly stated therein that the condition in the bail orders could not be sufficient to prevent the commission of further prejudicial anti-social activities by the detenu and that the detaining authority is satisfied, regarding that crucial aspect of the matter. It is true that more explanation has not been given in Ext.P2 detention order by the detaining authority as to why the said bail condition will not be sufficient. Going by the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the dictum laid down in Para 12 of Anita Antony's case (supra) would more befittingly and appropriately apply in the facts and circumstances of this case, than the one in Sreeja Jayaprakash's case (supra). 19. We also note that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shajitha Suneer's case (supra) was challenged by the State before the Apex Court by filing SLP (Crl.), in which therein, the Apex Court has passed final order dated 22.09.2020 in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 34801 of 2019, holding that their Lordships of the Apex Court are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Shajitha Suneer's case (supra) is doubtful but that as the detention period is already over long back, now the questions are left open and it was ordered that the said judgment in Shajitha Suneer's case (supra) shall not be treated as a precedent in future cases, including in respect of the respondent therein. In the light of these aspects we are not in a position to agree to the second contention of the petitioner. In other words, no successful grounds are made out to invoke judicial review remedy in the facts of this case. Further, it is also well established that the judicial review of subjective satisfaction, in cases of this nature, cannot be on the basis of sufficiency or otherwise of the reasons and materials which led to the subjective satisfaction. 20. In other words, no successful grounds are made out to invoke judicial review remedy in the facts of this case. Further, it is also well established that the judicial review of subjective satisfaction, in cases of this nature, cannot be on the basis of sufficiency or otherwise of the reasons and materials which led to the subjective satisfaction. 20. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the above Writ Petition (Criminal) will stand dismissed.