Bombay HC Denies Bail to Self-Styled ‘Guruji’ Accused of Repeated Sexual Exploitation of Minor

Justice Amit Borkar, while hearing the second bail application of Sureshkumar Ravindranarayan Avasthi alias Guruji, held that the allegations, supported by medical evidence, electronic records, and the victim’s testimony, pointed to a sustained pattern of abuse rather than an isolated incident. Court further observed that the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) was explained by the victim’s vulnerable position and the threats imposed by the accused.

A FIR was registered in 2022 at Versova police station in Mumbai, charging Avasthi under Section 376, 376(2)(N), 328, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which included rape, repeated rape, criminal intimidation, and administering stupefying substances. The charges also invoked Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Sections 2(1)(b) and 13 of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Black Magic Act, 2013.

According to the prosecution, the victim’s father, who considered Avasthi his spiritual teacher, regularly took his children to the accused for blessings and rituals. Over time, the accused allegedly demanded valuables as “offerings” and instilled fear of divine curses to maintain his control over the family. The allegations further state that Avasthi gave the victim “prasad” laced with intoxicants, sexually assaulted her, and later blackmailed her with nude photographs.

The victim narrated that the assaults continued over several years, often under threats that “Guru Ratandas Maharaj Sahebji will curse your family” or that her mother would die painfully if she revealed the abuse. She eventually approached the police, after enduring a prolonged period of silence due to fear and the influence Avasthi held over her father.

Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution highlighted that the victim was a minor at the time of the incidents, whereas the accused was in his late fifties. Medical examination findings suggested that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse, and call detail records demonstrated frequent late-night conversations between the two. The state also relied on text messages and emails sent by Avasthi, which allegedly contained inappropriate images and manipulative language consistent with the pattern of exploitation described by the victim.

Awasthi's counsel, however, argued that the allegations were false and fabricated, pointing to a nearly two-year delay in lodging the FIR. It was contended that the victim was already a major at the time of the alleged offences, rendering the POCSO Act inapplicable. Counsel for Avasthi further argued that the applicant’s age, ill health, and stable employment made it improbable for him to have committed the crimes, and asserted that the nature of text messages exchanged between him and the victim indicated voluntary interactions rather than coercion.

The High Court rejected these submissions, stating that cases of sexual assault involving abuse of trust or spiritual authority must be approached differently from ordinary criminal cases. “The victim was placed in an extremely vulnerable and fearful position, both emotionally and psychologically,” the court observed, holding that the delay in filing the complaint was reasonably explained by the threats of divine retribution and harm to her family.

Justice Borkar also emphasized that this was the second bail application, and no change in circumstances had been demonstrated since the first was dismissed.

Court noted that the offences alleged were of a serious nature, involving sexual exploitation of a minor, breach of trust, and use of blackmail. Granting bail, it warned, could risk witness intimidation, especially given the influence the accused earlier wielded over the victim and her family.

Finding that the prosecution’s material, including the victim’s consistent statement, medical findings, call detail records, text messages, and emails, established a strong prima facie case, the court concluded that this was not a fit case for granting bail.

Accordingly, Avasthi’s bail application was rejected.

Case Title: Sureshkumar Ravindranarayan Avasthi @ Guruji vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr

Order Date: August 12, 2025

Bench: Justice Amit Borkar