Delhi High Court Rejects Rajpal Yadav’s Last Plea to Avoid Jail, Actor to Surrender at Tihar

The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav’s final attempt to avoid imprisonment in a cheque bounce case, making it clear that any further hearing in the matter would be possible only after he surrenders before jail authorities. Following the court’s observation, the actor informed the bench that he would surrender at Tihar Jail later in the day.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was hearing the matter, stated that Yadav was required to surrender on Wednesday as per earlier directions of the court. Since he failed to do so, the court refused to entertain his plea seeking relief from custody at this stage. The judge clarified that once the actor complies with the surrender order, he would be at liberty to file an appropriate application as per law.

Court Declines Further Hearing Without Surrender

Rajpal Yadav was present in court during the hearing. His counsel, Senior Advocate Abhijat, submitted that the actor was prepared to deposit ₹25 lakh immediately and that a tentative repayment schedule for the remaining amount had been worked out between the parties. The submission was made in an effort to persuade the court to grant some relief from immediate incarceration.

However, the High Court remained firm, noting that the surrender order had already come into effect. Justice Sharma observed that the court could not hear the actor unless he first submitted himself to custody, as directed earlier. Following this, Yadav’s counsel informed the court that his client would surrender at Tihar Jail on the same day.

The court recorded this submission and reiterated that any further request would be considered only after compliance with its previous order.

Background of the Case

The case relates to a cheque dishonour complaint filed by a production company, Murli Projects Private Limited, against the actor. In May 2024, a sessions court had convicted Rajpal Yadav and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment under provisions dealing with cheque bounce offences.

Subsequently, the Delhi High Court had suspended the sentence after Yadav, through his counsel, assured the court that he was willing to amicably settle the dispute and clear the outstanding dues. On the basis of this assurance, the court had granted him relief from immediate custody, giving him time to make the agreed payments.

However, over time, the court noted that the commitments made by the actor were not honoured.

Failure to Meet Payment Assurances

As per court records, Yadav had earlier proposed to clear total dues of approximately ₹2.5 crore in two instalments—₹40 lakh by mid-December 2025 and the remaining ₹2.1 crore by mid-January 2026. The High Court later observed that even these promised payments were not made within the stipulated timeline.

On February 2, 2026, the High Court directed Yadav to surrender within two days before the jail superintendent after recording that he had failed to comply with multiple assurances given to the court regarding settlement and payment.

The actor subsequently approached the court on February 4 seeking additional time, citing issues related to preparation of a demand draft. This request was rejected, with the court noting that no meaningful steps were taken to correct the alleged error or to ensure that payment was actually made.

Court’s Observations on Conduct

During earlier hearings, the High Court had expressed strong disapproval of what it described as repeated delays and unfulfilled promises. The court observed that adjournments were sought on multiple occasions on the assurance that the matter would be settled, but those assurances did not translate into action.

While rejecting Yadav’s explanation related to an alleged technical mistake in payment, the court had pointed out that such an error could not justify continued non-compliance, particularly when no prompt corrective steps were taken.

The bench also made it clear that the surrender order was not passed hastily, but only after the court was satisfied that earlier opportunities granted to the actor had not been utilised responsibly.

Complainant’s Stand

Advocate Avneet Singh Sikka appeared on behalf of the complainant company, Murli Projects Private Limited. The complainant opposed any further relief, maintaining that despite repeated court directions, the dues remained unpaid and the settlement process had not moved forward in a meaningful manner.

The complainant’s counsel submitted that prolonged delays had caused financial and legal prejudice to the company, and that court orders needed to be enforced strictly to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

Next Legal Steps

With Rajpal Yadav stating before the High Court that he would surrender at Tihar Jail, the immediate focus now shifts to compliance with the custody order. Once he surrenders, the actor may file a fresh application seeking appropriate relief, which the court has indicated it will consider in accordance with law.

The case underscores the judiciary’s consistent position that assurances given to courts, particularly in matters involving financial settlements, must be honoured in letter and spirit, and that failure to do so can attract serious consequences, regardless of the stature of the individual involved.