JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 13.2.2003 of the District Parole Advisory Committee Kota and prays to release him on parole for a period of 7 days u/R.. 18(ii) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short `1958 Rules') for surgical operation of his mother in order to cure her eye ailment. 2. A look at the impugned order dated 13.2.2003 reveals that although the reports of Social Welfare Officer and the Superintendent Central Jail Kota was in favour of the petitioner, the Advisory Committee declined the release considering the adverse police report given by the Superintendent of Police Kota City. A casual reference of misusing the order of earlier release by the petitioner, has also been made in the order. 3. Having heard the rival submissions and on a careful scrutiny of the material on record and the relevant statutory provisions we find that in view of R. 18(ii) of 1958 Rules, a prisoner may be let off on parole for seven days even after overstaying the sanctioned parole period, if the Superintendent of Jail is fully satisfied that the prisoner will not commit any breach of condition in future. In the case on hand as already seen the Superintendent of Central Jail has recommended the release of the petitioner on parole for seven days, therefore the Advisory Committee ought not have ignored the said recommendations. If there was any apprehension about the conduct of the petitioner, the Advisory Committee could have appointed guardian to supervise the conduct of the petitioner as per the provisions contained in R. 11 of 1958 Rules. We are of the opinion that the recommendations of Superintendent Central Jail and Social Welfare Officer could not have been turned down in a casual manner we find that Superintendent of Police although expressed apprehension of breach of peace in the event of release of the petitioner on parole but nothing was said in the report as to why the peace was not endangered when the petitioner was earlier released. Such a vague police report ought not to have been made the basis for rejection of application seeking release on parole. 4. Such a vague police report ought not to have been made the basis for rejection of application seeking release on parole. 4. The Parole Advisory Committee while considering the parole matters is expected to keep in view the ratio of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579 that the prisons are built with stones of law and when a prisoner is traumatized the Constitution suffers a shock. A prisoner in the eye of law, is a person and not an animal. 5. As a result of the foregoing discussions we allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 13.2.2003 of the District Parole Committee Kota. We direct the District Parole Advisory Committee to issue the order forthwith releasing the petitioner on parole for seven days u/R. 18(ii) of 1958 Rules on furnishing by him a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate Kota. A guardian u/R. 11 shall also be appointed to watch the conduct of the petitioner. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Magistrate Kota.Writ petition allowed. *******