A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has been detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by order dated 16/06/1987 passed by the District Magistrate Rajkot. The petitioner/detenu has been arrested on the same day and the grounds of detention have been served upon him on that very day. The petitioner has been detained on the ground that he is a dangerous person inasmuch as he was involved in an offence punishable under Secs. 323 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have taken place on 29/07/1986 On the basis of the aforesaid complaint against the detenu and other statements given by certain persons of Upleta Town the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a dangerous person and his activity as such was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence with a view to prevent him from indulging in such activity the order of detention has been passed and from the date of detention i. e. 16/06/1987 the petitioner/detenu is in Jail. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order of detention on the ground that he is not a dangerous person as defined under the provisions of Sec. 2 (C) of the Act. Therefore he cannot be detained under the provisions of the Act and he should be ordered to be released. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has road the grounds detention before us. As per the grounds of detention there was one incident which had taken place on 29/07/1986 In respect of this incident First Information Report has been lodged at Upleta Police Station. As disclosed in the F. I. R. one Rafiq Haji Gulam Kadar had some quarrel in respect of carrying of goods in a transport vehicle. As alleged in the F. I R. the detenu and his brother Jetha Fogal had called other persons and had beaten the complainant. This had created an atmosphere of unsecurity. The detaining authority has also relied upon the statements of Kanjibhai Devjibhai and Shantilal Revashanker. As alleged in the F. I R. the detenu and his brother Jetha Fogal had called other persons and had beaten the complainant. This had created an atmosphere of unsecurity. The detaining authority has also relied upon the statements of Kanjibhai Devjibhai and Shantilal Revashanker. Interestingly enough these two witnesses referred to certain incidents they took place during the municipal election in the year 1972 and no incident which can be legitimately connected with the activity of the detenu in the recent past has been referred to by them. Statement of Iqubalmiya Yusufmiya refers to an incident of February 1980 He also does not refer to any incident which might have connection with the activity of the detenu in the recent past. Similarly Shantibhai Veljibhai in his statement refers to an incident of 5/01/1983 and he also does not refer to any incident of the recent past. Then there is statement of Gordhanbhai Kanjibhai. He is the President of Upleta Municipality. His allegations are vague and he does not refer to any particular incident The allegations made are in respect of some alleged encroachment made by the detenu and his brother. But there is no specific reference to a particular incident. Similarly statement of Bhurabhai Ditabhai has been recorded and in his statement he has referred to some anti-social activities of the petitioner detenu and his brother. The allegations are with respect to extortion of money and forcible work without payment. However there is no date or time mentioned as regards this alleged illegal activities of the detenu to say the heard this and vague and generally. Ahmedbhai Ismailbhai has made statement wherein the incident of 29/07/1986 has been mentioned about which complaint has already been filed and reference to this complaint has already been made hereinabove. ( 4 ) GOVERNMENT Officers like Sub-Divisional Magistrate Taluka Magistrate and Police Sub-Inspector have also given their statements. But their statements also do not refer to any particular incident or the commission of offences under the provisions of Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter V of the Arms Act. From the entire material placed before the detaining authority all that appears is that the petitioner/detenu is involved in one incident which has taken place on 25/07/1986 and F. I. R. of it is filed. From the entire material placed before the detaining authority all that appears is that the petitioner/detenu is involved in one incident which has taken place on 25/07/1986 and F. I. R. of it is filed. ( 5 ) IT cannot be said that the petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under the provisions of the Act. Dangerous person means a person who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act 1959 On the basis of the material placed before the detaining authority and from the grounds of detention which have been placed before us it becomes clear that only one solitary case has been registered against the petitioner/detenu for an incident alleged to have taken place on 29/07/1986 Such single solitary incident and alleged involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence punishable under Secs. 323 325 326 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 37 (1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act cannot make a person dangerous person as envisaged under the Act. 6 On this point there is a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1984 SC at page 1334. As held by the Supreme Court the expression habitually means repeatedly or persistently. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together Similar repetitive acts. Repeated persistent and similar but not isolated individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. In the instant case by no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the petitioner habitually commits or has attempted to commit the offence as stated above and he can never be said to be a dangerous person at defined under the Act. In above view of the matter the order of detention passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) IN the result the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 16/06/1987 produced at Annexure A to the petition is quashed and set aside. The petitioner/detenu Der Punja Fogal is ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case. Rule made absolute accordingly. ( 6 ) IN the result the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 16/06/1987 produced at Annexure A to the petition is quashed and set aside. The petitioner/detenu Der Punja Fogal is ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case. Rule made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed. .