Preventive detention requires proof of habitual offending; an isolated incident cannot satisfy the statutory definition of a Goonda.

Preventive detention under the Act could be invoked only if the detenu satisfied the statutory definition of a Goonda, which required habitual commission, attempt, or abetment of specified offences. Habitual conduct meant repeated or persistent offending with a thread of continuity, not a single isolated incident. Because the detention grounds referred only to one act and no material showed repeated criminal activity, the statutory precondition for detention was not met. The detention order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with release directed unless the detenu was required in any other case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order could be sustained in the absence of material showing that the detenu habitually committed offences so as to answer the definition of a Goonda under the Act.

Analysis: The detention power under Section 3(1) of the Act could be invoked only if the detenu satisfied the statutory definition of a Goonda in Section 2(f). That definition requires habitual commission, attempt, or abetment of offences of the prescribed kind. Habitual conduct denotes repeated or persistent offending and a thread of continuity, not an isolated incident. Since the grounds of detention referred only to one act and there was no material showing repeated or persistent criminal activity, the statutory precondition for detention was not made out.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was set aside; the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention under the Act cannot be sustained unless there is material showing habitual offending as required by the statutory definition, and an isolated incident by itself is insufficient.

---