New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav’s last attempt to escape jail in a series of check dishonor cases and directed that he will have to surrender before jail authorities before allowing further hearing.
The development occurred after Yadav failed to adhere to the surrender deadline set by the court, following repeated violations of undertakings regarding payment of the settlement amount to the complainant company.
The senior lawyer appearing for the actor said that Yadav was ready to deposit Rs 25 lakh immediately and both the parties had tentatively agreed on the repayment schedule of the remaining dues.
Add Zee News as favorite source
However, the Court refused to grant any relief, noting that Yadav had already been directed to surrender on February 4, 2026. Justice Sharma said that since the actor had failed to comply with the surrender order, he would be heard only if he surrenders himself to the jail authorities.
Read this also Delhi High Court has directed Rajpal Yadav to surrender by February 4 in many check bounce cases.
Following the court’s remarks, Yadav’s counsel informed the bench that the actor would surrender at Tihar jail during the day. The court clarified that once Yadav surrenders, he will be free to file appropriate application as per law.
The high court had earlier withdrawn the leniency granted to Yadav and directed him to surrender before the concerned jail superintendent by 4 pm on February 4, 2026. The court held that the actor had repeatedly violated the undertakings given to settle the dues.
The sentence awarded by the trial court was suspended in June 2024 to facilitate a settlement between the parties. The Court said that such relief was granted only on the basis of assurance that the dispute would be resolved amicably and payment would be made.
However, the Court recorded that the commitments made in successive judicial orders were not respected. On several occasions, despite clear deadlines being set, Yadav failed to pay several crores of rupees.
The Court further noted that the promised partial payment through demand draft and installment schedule was also not deposited within the stipulated time. Rejecting explanations relating to technical or typographical errors in the demand draft, the Court held that such reasons do not inspire confidence, especially given the persistent pattern of default.
Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma also adversely commented on the fact that assurances were given in the open court through senior counsel and additional time was given on the basis of instructions from the petitioner. Despite this, no formal application for clarification or rectification was filed, and requests for adjournment were made without compliance after repeated assurances of payment.
Taking into account the repeated breaches of the undertakings and admitted liability, the High Court refused to extend any further relaxation. It also directed that the amount already deposited with the Registrar General be released in favor of the complainant company.