Rajpal Yadav Surrenders In Tihar Jail After Delhi High Court Rejects Extension Plea In Cheque-Bounce Cases

Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav surrendered to the Tihar Jail authorities on Thursday at 4 pm, after the Delhi High Court refused to extend the deadline in connection with his conviction in cheque-bounce cases.

As per ANI, the Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav’s final plea to avoid jail in multiple cheque dishonour cases. The Court ordered him to surrender to the jail authorities before it would consider granting any further hearing.

This decision followed Yadav’s failure to meet the Court-set surrender deadline, after he repeatedly breached his undertakings to pay the agreed settlement amount to the complainant company.

The actor’s senior lawyer told the Court that Yadav was willing to deposit ₹25 lakh immediately and that both sides had tentatively agreed on a repayment plan for the remaining amount.

However, the Court refused to provide any relief. Justice Sharma noted that the Court had already directed Yadav to surrender on February 4, 2026. The judge added that since Yadav did not follow the surrender order, the Court would hear him only after he submits himself to the jail authorities.

After the Court made its observation, Yadav’s lawyer told the bench that the actor would surrender at Tihar Jail later that day. The Court stated that once Yadav surrenders, he will be free to file a suitable application as per the law.

Earlier, the High Court withdrew the relief given to Yadav and ordered him to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by 4 PM on February 4, 2026. The Court found that the actor had repeatedly broken the undertakings he gave to clear the settlement dues.

The trial court had suspended his sentence in June 2024 to help both sides settle. The Court noted that it granted this relief only because Yadav assured that the matter would be resolved amicably and payments would be made.

However, the Court recorded that he did not honour the commitments mentioned in successive judicial orders. Despite several clear deadlines, Yadav failed to pay amounts running into several crores of rupees.

The Court further observed that even partial payments promised through demand drafts and instalment schedules were not deposited within the stipulated time. Rejecting explanations relating to technical or typographical errors in demand drafts, the Court held that such reasons did not inspire confidence, particularly in view of the consistent pattern of default.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma also took adverse note of the fact that undertakings were given in open court through senior counsel and that additional time had been granted based on the petitioner's instructions. Despite this, no formal application was filed seeking clarification or rectification, and repeated assurances of payment were followed by requests for adjournments without compliance.
Taking note of the repeated breach of undertakings and admitted liability, the High Court declined to extend any further indulgence. It also directed that the amounts already deposited with the Registrar General be released in favour of the complainant company.

(Input from ANI)