Delhi High Court Firm on Rajpal Yadav Surrender Order, Rejects Mercy Plea
The Delhi High Court on Thursday took a stern stance, refusing to withdraw its earlier directive that ordered actor Rajpal Yadav to surrender before prison authorities. This decision comes in connection with his conviction in multiple cheque bounce cases, with the court emphasizing that it cannot create special circumstances based on an individual's profession or background.
Court Expresses Strong Disapproval of Non-Compliance
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, expressing her strong disapproval, ordered Yadav to surrender forthwith. The court noted that his failure to comply with the February 4 deadline, despite clear directions, demonstrated a lack of respect for the law. During the hearing, Yadav's senior counsel made a mercy plea, urging the court to recall its previous order to allow the actor time to arrange funds for repayment to the complainant, M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd.
The counsel argued that Yadav was unable to meet the 4 pm surrender deadline on February 4 because he was attempting to arrange money and only reached Delhi at 5 pm. However, the court observed that the law rewards its compliance and not its contempt, stating that recalling the order would send a message that court directives could be ignored repeatedly without consequences.
Legal Principles Upheld Over Leniency
In its ruling, the court clearly stated: This Court cannot be expected to show or create special circumstances for any person merely because such a person belongs to a particular background or industry. Leniency, though sometimes necessary, cannot be extended endlessly, especially when it is met with continued non-compliance.
The court found no merit in the plea to recall the surrender order and directed Yadav to surrender immediately before the Jail Superintendent at Tihar. Yadav was physically present in court for the proceedings, where his senior counsel informed the bench that the actor was willing to hand over a demand draft of ₹25 lakh to the complainant and comply with a structured payment plan.
Background of the Legal Proceedings
The case originated from revision petitions filed by Yadav and his wife against a 2019 sessions court ruling that upheld their conviction by a magistrate's court in April 2018. The convictions relate to multiple cheque bounce cases. In June 2024, the High Court had granted temporary suspension of Yadav's conviction, conditional on him taking sincere and genuine measures to explore an amicable settlement with the complainant.
Previously, the magistrate's court had sentenced Yadav to six months' imprisonment. At that stage, his counsel argued that the cheques were linked to a bona fide transaction intended to fund a film project that failed commercially, resulting in significant financial losses.
Financial Liabilities and Court's Earlier Remarks
In its February 2 order, which directed Yadav to surrender by 4 pm on February 4, the High Court remarked that his conduct warranted censure due to repeated violations of assurances to repay dues owed to M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd. The court recorded that Yadav is liable to pay ₹1.35 crore in each of the seven pending cases against him.
Additionally, the court ordered the release of funds already deposited with the Registrar General of the High Court to the complainant. It noted that while two demand drafts totaling ₹75 lakh were deposited in October 2025, an outstanding amount of ₹9 crore remains unpaid. On February 4, the court declined to grant Yadav additional time and refused to extend the surrender deadline, reinforcing its commitment to upholding legal accountability.
