E-Paper
Delhi HC rejects Rajpal Yadav’s plea, orders surrender in cheque bounce case
Delhi high court rejects Rajpal Yadav’s plea for more time and orders the actor to surrender by 4 pm to serve a six-month sentence in a cheque bounce case
New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Wednesday rejected Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav’s plea seeking more time to surrender before jail authorities to serve a six-month sentence in a cheque bounce case, directing him to report to the jail superintendent by 4 pm the same day.
A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that no grounds existed to grant any further extension and said she had already granted him an additional two days to surrender on February 2.
Criticising Yadav for repeatedly breaching undertakings given to the court regarding payment of the settlement amounts, the high court on Monday had directed him to surrender by Wednesday.
“I had already rejected your request and granted you two days’ time to surrender, and today you are supposed to surrender. There is no ground for any extension. On the last date I had told you why this (request for more time to arrange the money) was being rejected. I had already granted you two more days. You’re supposed to surrender,” Justice Sharma said to the actor’s lawyer.
“His conduct has been mentioned in the last order. He has not complied with any undertaking, any assurance. There will be no ground, this will be rejected,” she added.
This came after the actor-cum-comedian’s counsel requested the court to grant him one week to surrender, stating that he had been arranging funds and had already managed to arrange ₹50 lakh.
The court was dealing with the actor’s petition challenging the trial court’s January 2019 order, which upheld the metropolitan magistrate’s decision convicting him and his wife under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing them to six months’ imprisonment.
The conviction arose from a criminal complaint filed by the private firm Messrs Murli Projects Private Limited, alleging that Yadav had taken a loan of ₹5 crore in 2010 for the production of the film Ata Pata Lapata, with a commitment to repay ₹8 crore. However, he allegedly failed to honour this commitment.
The firm further alleged that, although the repayment was scheduled on three separate occasions and a settlement was later reached for a reduced amount of ₹7 crore, the seven cheques issued towards this settlement were dishonoured.
The high court in June 2024 had suspended the six-month sentence awarded to the couple in April 2019, noting that they were not hardened criminals, and this suspension was extended from time to time. The court also referred the matter to mediation after they expressed their intention to explore the possibility of a settlement. On December 18, 2025, Yadav’s counsel had assured the court that demand drafts worth ₹40 lakh had been prepared and that the remaining amount of ₹2.10 crore would be paid by January 19.
This was after Yadav’s lawyer informed the court that neither the demand drafts had been deposited with the Registrar General nor had the balance amount of ₹2.10 crore been paid. Though the counsel attempted to justify the failure to deposit the demand drafts on the ground of typographical errors in the details, no explanation was offered for the non-payment of ₹2.10 crore. The counsel further submitted that he was unable to contact his client as his mobile phone was switched off and stated that, if granted additional time, his client was willing to deposit ₹40 lakh by February 3.
