"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. It connotes frequent commission of acts or omissions of the same kind referred to in each of the said subclauses or an aggregate of similar acts or omissions. This appears to be clear from the use of the word "habitually" separately in sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) and sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(d) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, and not in sub-clauses (iii) and (v) of Section 2(d) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. If the State Legislature had intended that a commission of two or more acts or omissions referred to in any of the sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Section 2(d) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, was sufficient to make a person an "antisocial element", the definition would have run as "Anti-social element" means "a person who habitually is .......". As Section 2(d) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, now stands, whereas under sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (v) of Section 2(d) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, a single act or omission referred to in them may be enough to treat the person concerned as an 'antisocial element', in the case of sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iv), there should be a repetition of facts or
