The Court Said that Repeated Leniency Would Convey the Message that Directions Can Be Ignored Without Consequence

Advertisment

Actor Rajpal Yadav surrendered after the Delhi High Court refused to grant relief in multiple cheque bounce cases. Following the court’s order, he was taken into custody and sent to Tihar Jail. The actor had earlier sought an extension of the deadline for his surrender. 

Rajpal Yadav Surrenders 

On Wednesday (February 4, 2026), the high court refused to extend the deadline set for Rajpal to surrender to the jail authorities. The actor's lawyer had told the court that his client had arranged Rs. 50 lakh and sought one more week to make the payment. On February 2, the actor had been directed to surrender by 4 pm on Wednesday. 

“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,” said the court.

Advertisment

News agency PTI quoted “Now the jail authorities will follow the standard operating procedure.”

M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd. VS Rajpal Yadav Case

In 2018, a magisterial court in Delhi had convicted Rajpal Yadav and his wife in cheque-bounce cases. The court also sentenced the actor to six months' imprisonment. The case involves a complaint filed by M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd. over several bounced cheques from them and failure to pay back what was due to them. The conviction was upheld by a sessions court in 2019. 

The actor challenged this in the Delhi High Court. In June 2024, the conviction was temporarily suspended after the high court urged the actor to adopt “sincere and genuine measures” to explore the possibility of reaching an amicable settlement with the opposite party.

Advertisment

On February 2, the high court directed Rajpal to surrender, observing that the actor repeatedly breached his undertakings to the court to repay the amount to the complainant.

“A Court of law looks through only from the prism of equality as per law. While this Court, in the present case, has shown sufficient leniency towards the petitioner, it cannot lose sight of the plight of the complainant. The interests of justice require this Court to walk a careful line between compassion and discipline. Leniency, though sometimes necessary, cannot be extended endlessly, especially when it is met with continued non-compliance,” the judge said.

Closing Note 

The actor appeared before the Court with his counsel, who said that Yadav could not comply with the order directing him to surrender before the Jail Superintendent, Tihar, at 4 PM yesterday, since he was trying to arrange money. 

Advertisment

The counsel said that the actor had reached Delhi at 5 PM, but he did not surrender. It was also stated that the request of the actor be treated as a mercy plea and that the order directing him to surrender before the Jail Superintendent be recalled to enable him to arrange for money to repay the dues towards him.