New Delhi: Actor Rajpal Yadav has landed in trouble over the non-payment of settlement amounts in a cheque-bounce case. He surrendered before the Tihar Jail authorities in Delhi, and his bail hearing on Thursday was adjourned.
Priyadarshan Breaks Silence, Offers Support
Filmmaker Priyadarshan has now reacted to the development, saying he has tried to arrange higher remuneration for the actor in his upcoming film. The director has previously collaborated with Rajpal in several films, including Bhagam Bhaag, Chup Chup Ke, and De Dana Dan.
Add Zee News as a Preferred Source
Priyadarshan is currently busy with the post-production of his film Bhooth Bangla. Speaking to Midday, he said, “I have known Rajpal for over 20 years. I saw him for the first time in Jungle [2000] and was surprised by his performance. My first film with him was Malamaal Weekly [2006], and after that, he has starred in most of my films. I told the producers [Jubilee Films] of my next to pay Rajpal more than what he charges because of his situation. We want to save him. The producers have agreed. Rajpal plays the villain in my movie.”
Court Proceedings and Repayment Plan
On February 6, 2026, senior advocate Abhijat appeared on behalf of Rajpal Yadav and informed the court that the actor would deposit Rs 25 lakh immediately, along with a tentative repayment schedule for the remaining dues. However, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that Rajpal had been required to surrender a day earlier and would be heard only after complying with that direction.
According to ANI, the Delhi High Court had earlier withdrawn the leniency granted to Rajpal Yadav and directed him to surrender before the concerned jail superintendent by February 4, 2026, citing repeated violations of undertakings to clear settlement dues.
The sentence imposed by the trial court had been suspended in June 2024 to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties. However, the High Court noted that even partial payments promised through demand drafts and instalment schedules were not made within the stipulated time. The Court also rejected explanations citing technical or typographical errors, stating that they failed to inspire confidence given the consistent pattern of default.
