Rajpal Yadav Granted Interim Bail by Delhi High Court in ₹9 Crore Cheque Bounce Case
Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav was granted interim bail by the Delhi High Court on Monday in connection with the long-running ₹9 crore cheque bounce case. The actor, who had been lodged in Tihar Jail for over a week following a court order directing him to surrender, is now expected to walk out of prison later in the day.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted interim bail to the actor until March 18, subject to specific conditions, offering temporary relief in a case that has spanned more than a decade and drawn attention across the Hindi film industry.
The legal battle stems from a loan taken in 2010 by Rajpal Yadav from Delhi-based Murali Projects Pvt Ltd to finance his directorial venture, Ata Pata Laapata. The film, released in 2012, failed to perform at the box office, and the actor reportedly struggled to repay the borrowed amount.
Over the years, the financial dispute escalated into criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds. The case has moved through multiple judicial stages, including conviction and appeals, before reaching its current phase in the High Court.
On February 2, 2026, the High Court had directed Yadav to surrender after observing that he had repeatedly failed to honour undertakings made to the court regarding repayment of dues. The court had noted concerns over compliance and the need to enforce accountability.
During Monday’s hearing, the High Court initially directed Rajpal Yadav to deposit ₹1.5 crore by 3 PM as a precondition for interim bail. The counsel representing the complainant firm confirmed before the court that the amount had been credited to the company’s bank accounts against the bounced cheque liability.
Following this confirmation, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted interim bail till March 18. The relief was subject to the actor furnishing a bail bond of ₹1 lakh along with one surety.
The court’s order provides temporary respite but also sets the stage for further scrutiny at the next hearing. By March 18, Yadav is expected to demonstrate substantial progress in clearing the remaining dues in order to avoid further legal consequences.
Legal experts note that interim bail in such cases does not amount to acquittal or final relief but serves as a conditional suspension of custody pending compliance with court directives.
The origins of the case date back to 2010, when Rajpal Yadav borrowed ₹5 crore from Murali Projects Pvt Ltd for his film Ata Pata Laapata. Despite high expectations, the film did not recover its investment. Subsequently, seven cheques issued by Yadav were dishonoured, leading to criminal proceedings.
In 2018, a magisterial court convicted Rajpal Yadav and his wife Radha under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court sentenced the actor to six months of simple imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by a Sessions Court in 2019.
Yadav then moved the Delhi High Court in appeal. In 2024, the High Court granted him relief by suspending the sentence, directing him to take “sincere and genuine measures” to clear outstanding dues. By that stage, accumulated interest and liabilities had reportedly pushed the total outstanding amount to approximately ₹9 crore.
However, the court later observed that the actor had breached assurances regarding repayment, ultimately leading to its February 2026 direction requiring him to surrender before being taken into custody at Tihar Jail.
Following his surrender earlier this month, Rajpal Yadav reportedly received support from several members of the Hindi film fraternity.
Actor Sonu Sood was among the first to publicly back him, signing Yadav for an upcoming project and providing an undisclosed signing amount. The move was seen by many as a gesture of solidarity.
The Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) also urged members of the industry to extend assistance. Reports indicated that prominent actors such as Salman Khan and Ajay Devgn reached out to the actor’s family during the period of incarceration.
While no official financial details were disclosed, Yadav’s wife stated that multiple industry colleagues had stepped forward to offer help during the difficult phase.
The Rajpal Yadav case underscores the legal seriousness of cheque dishonour under Indian law. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is designed to maintain trust in commercial transactions and carries criminal liability, including imprisonment and fines.
The High Court’s approach reflects a balancing act between enforcing judicial orders and allowing an accused the opportunity to comply with repayment obligations. The interim bail signals that courts may consider partial compliance and demonstrable efforts toward settlement while safeguarding the complainant’s rights.
For the film industry, the episode highlights the financial risks associated with independent productions and the personal liabilities that can follow commercial failure. While artistic ventures carry inherent uncertainty, financial agreements remain legally binding.
The visible industry support for Yadav also raises questions about informal networks of solidarity in Bollywood and the role of professional bodies in crises involving their members.
At the same time, the judiciary’s firm observations regarding repeated breaches suggest that reputational goodwill alone does not substitute for legal compliance.
Rajpal Yadav’s interim bail marks a significant development in a protracted legal battle that has spanned over a decade. With the next hearing scheduled for March 18, the focus will now shift to whether the actor can clear the remaining dues and satisfy the court’s expectations.
The case remains a reminder of the legal consequences of financial disputes and the importance of adhering to judicial commitments. As proceedings continue, the final outcome will depend on both legal arguments and demonstrable financial resolution.
OUr Final Thoughts from TheTrendingPeople
Rajpal Yadav’s interim bail brings temporary relief but not closure. The Delhi High Court’s conditional order makes it clear that compliance, not sympathy, will determine the final outcome. While the support from Bollywood reflects the strong personal bonds within the industry, the legal framework governing cheque bounce cases leaves little room for emotional considerations.
This episode also serves as a broader lesson about financial accountability in creative industries. Film ventures may fail, but contractual commitments remain enforceable under law. As the March 18 hearing approaches, the case will test whether structured repayment and judicial oversight can resolve a dispute that has lingered for years.
For now, the spotlight remains not on the silver screen but inside the courtroom, where the next chapter of Rajpal Yadav’s legal journey will unfold.