Rajpal Yadav: The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav’s final bid to avoid imprisonment in a series of cheque dishonour cases, directing him to surrender before jail authorities before the court considers any further plea.
The order came after the actor failed to comply with a previously fixed surrender deadline, despite repeated undertakings to clear settlement dues owed to the complainant company.
Court Refuses Relief Despite Fresh Payment Offer
During the hearing, senior counsel appearing for Yadav informed the court that the actor was willing to deposit ₹25 lakh immediately and that both sides had tentatively agreed on a repayment schedule for the remaining amount.
However, the court declined to grant any relief. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma noted that Yadav had already been directed to surrender by February 4, 2026, and had failed to comply with that order. The court made it clear that the actor would be heard only after surrendering before jail authorities.
Following the observation, Yadav’s counsel informed the bench that the actor would surrender at Tihar Jail later in the day. The court clarified that upon surrender, Yadav would be free to move an appropriate application in accordance with law.
Repeated Breach Of Undertakings Noted
The High Court recalled that earlier leniency granted to Yadav had been withdrawn after he repeatedly violated undertakings given to clear settlement amounts. The sentence imposed by the trial court had been suspended in June 2024 solely to allow an amicable settlement between the parties.
However, the court recorded that commitments made through multiple judicial orders were not honoured. Despite clear timelines and assurances, Yadav failed to make payments amounting to several crores of rupees.
Court Flags Pattern Of Default
Justice Sharma also rejected explanations citing technical or typographical errors in demand drafts, observing that such reasons did not inspire confidence given the consistent pattern of non-compliance. The court noted that undertakings were given in open court through senior counsel and that additional time had been granted on the actor’s instructions.
Despite this, no formal applications seeking clarification or rectification were filed, and repeated assurances were followed by requests for adjournments without payment.
Taking adverse note of the repeated breaches and admitted liability, the High Court declined to extend any further indulgence. It also directed that the amounts already deposited with the Registrar General be released to the complainant company.
(Via Agency Inputs)
