Media365
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav’s final attempt to avoid imprisonment in a series of cheque dishonour cases and directed that he must surrender before jail authorities before any further hearing can be granted.
The development came after Yadav failed to comply with the surrender deadline fixed by the Court, following repeated violations of undertakings regarding payment of settlement amounts to the complainant company.
Senior Lawyer appearing for the actor, submitted that Yadav was ready to deposit Rs 25 lakh immediately and that both parties had tentatively agreed upon a repayment schedule for the remaining dues.
Add Zee News as a Preferred Source
However, the Court declined to grant any relief, observing that Yadav had already been directed to surrender on February 4, 2026. Justice Sharma stated that since the actor had failed to comply with the surrender order, he would be heard only after he hands himself over to the jail authorities.
Also Read | Rajpal Yadav directed to surrender by Delhi High Court over multiple cheque bounce cases by February 4
Following the Court’s observation, Yadav’s counsel informed the bench that the actor would surrender at Tihar Jail later in the day. The Court clarified that once Yadav surrenders, he would be at liberty to file an appropriate application in accordance with law.
The High Court had earlier withdrawn the leniency extended to Yadav and directed him to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by February 4, 2026, at 4 PM. The Court held that the actor had repeatedly violated undertakings given to clear settlement dues.
The sentence awarded by the trial court had been suspended in June 2024 to facilitate settlement between the parties. The Court noted that such relief had been granted solely on the basis of assurances that the dispute would be amicably resolved and payments would be made.
However, the Court recorded that commitments made in successive judicial orders were not honoured. Despite clear timelines being fixed on multiple occasions, Yadav failed to make payments amounting to several crores of rupees.
The Court further observed that even partial payments promised through demand drafts and instalment schedules were not deposited within the stipulated time. Rejecting explanations relating to technical or typographical errors in demand drafts, the Court held that such reasons did not inspire confidence, particularly in view of the consistent pattern of default.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma also took adverse note of the fact that undertakings were given in open court through senior counsel and that additional time had been granted based on the petitioner’s instructions. Despite this, no formal application was filed seeking clarification or rectification, and repeated assurances of payment were followed by requests for adjournments without compliance.
Taking note of the repeated breach of undertakings 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 in favour of the complainant company.
