Rajpal Yadav has been in the news as he has been given a deadline to clear his amount in the cheque bounce case. The counsel for Yadav, who was on February 2 directed to surrender by 4 pm on Wednesday, submitted that the actor had arranged a sum of Rs 50 lakh and therefore sought one more week’s time so that he could make the payment. The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to extend the deadline and asked Rajpal Yadav to surrender.
Delhi HC refuses to extend Rajpal Yadav’s deadline
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav’s plea seeking an extension of time to surrender before jail authorities in connection with multiple cheque bounce cases.
Holding that there was no ground left to show any further leniency, a single-judge Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed that the order directing Yadav to surrender was passed only after he repeatedly failed to comply with assurances and undertakings given earlier to the Delhi High Court. “You were granted two days’ time to surrender, as you said you were in Bombay. I don’t think there is any ground. There is no ground to show leniency anymore. Today you have to surrender at 4 p.m.,” Justice Sharma observed.
The counsel said he was only making a “mercy plea” and urged the court to give at least a day’s time to enable Yadav to make the payment of Rs 50 lakh.
Rajpal Yadav asked to surrender
In the order passed on February 2, while directing him to surrender by 4 pm on Wednesday, the court observed that Yadav’s conduct deserved to be deprecated, as he repeatedly breached his undertakings to the court to repay the amount to the complainant, M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd. The court had noted that Yadav was required to make payments of Rs 1.35 crore in each of the seven cases against him and directed that the amount already deposited with the registrar general of the high court be released in favour of the complainant.
Details about the case
Rajpal Yadav was convicted and sentenced in 2024 in cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. His sentence had been suspended earlier after he expressed willingness to amicably settle the dispute with the complainant company, and the matter was even referred to mediation.
The magisterial court had sentenced him to undergo six months’ imprisonment. At that time, Yadav’s counsel had said it was a genuine transaction to finance the production of a movie, which bombed at the box office, resulting in huge financial losses. However, the Delhi High Court had noted that no payment was made for nearly a year despite specific timelines and assurances given from time to time.
Observing that “considerable leniency” had already been shown, Justice Sharma had said there was no justification to continue the indulgence granted to the actor.
