Rajpal Yadav To Go Back To Jail As Delhi High Court Uphelds Conviction In Cheque Bounce Case

The Delhi High Court was scheduled to pronounce its judgment in the cheque bounce case involving Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav today, July 10. In the latest hearing, the court upheld the conviction against the ace actor. As per Live Law, Yadav has been sentenced to undergo a three-month imprisonment in each of seven cases. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered the sentence to the actor. 

Will Rajpal Yadav go back to jail now? 

In the fresh judgment, the Delhi High Court has sentenced Rajpal Yadav to three months' imprisonment in seven different cases. The sentences will be run cocurreconcurrentlyng that the actor will spend only 3 months in prison in total. As per Live Law, the court has also directed Yadav to pay ₹1.05 crore to the complainant in each seven cases. The publication has also noted that the actor has been asked to pay ₹1,04,75,000 along with ₹25,000 to the State.

Not just the actor, his wife Radha, has also been directed to pay ₹5,00,51,380 to the complainant in each case. The court took into account the dues that Yadav had already settled when the matter was in court.

During a previous court hearing, the actor made an emotional appeal while opposing the settlement proposal. The HC had expressed dissatisfaction over the shifting stand taken by Yadav regarding repayment of the outstanding dues. At one stage, it observed, "I am not getting my answers. The undertaking said something else and now you are saying something else," indicating concern over inconsistencies in the submissions made on behalf of the actor.

In the Court's suggestion, the complainant agreed to accept ₹6 crore as a full and final settlement. However, Yadav, appearing virtually in last date of the hearing, declined the proposal and told the Court that he had already suffered heavy financial losses. He stated that he had been forced to sell his property and had already made substantial payments. The Court also suggested a structured payment of ₹3 crore within a fixed timeline, clarifying that it was only a judicial suggestion and not a concluded settlement. Despite these efforts, the parties failed to reach an agreement.