New Delhi, September 15, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted actor and comedian Rajpal Yadav a “last opportunity” of two weeks to comply with its direction to deposit money as a condition for continuing his exemption from surrender in multiple cheque dishonour cases.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was informed that Yadav had not complied with the court’s earlier direction to deposit ₹5 crore with the Supreme Court registry.
Senior advocate P.S. Patwalia, appearing for Yadav, sought two weeks’ time, submitting that the actor was facing financial difficulties and intended to arrange the required amount by selling property. He requested that Yadav be allowed to return to the court with a concrete proposal and deposit at least ₹2 crore.
The Bench, however, took note of Yadav’s past conduct and said it did not inspire confidence. Nevertheless, it granted him two weeks as a final opportunity to honour the statement made before the court.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on October 5. Yadav has been directed to remain personally present on that date with the demand draft, while the complainant has also been asked to remain present.
The court continued Yadav’s exemption from surrender until October 5, subject to the conditions already imposed. It also directed him to deposit his passport with the Supreme Court registry.
The development follows the Supreme Court’s September 8 decision to hear petitions filed by Yadav and his wife challenging a Delhi High Court judgment upholding their convictions in seven cheque dishonour cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The apex court had then exempted them from surrendering, subject to the deposit of ₹5 crore, and issued notice on their Special Leave Petitions.
On July 10, the Delhi High Court upheld Yadav’s conviction while reducing his sentence from six months to three months’ simple imprisonment in each of the seven cases. The fines were also reduced from ₹1.60 crore to ₹1.05 crore in each case, with the substantive sentences ordered to run concurrently.
The High Court took into account payments already made by Yadav to the complainant, M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd, during the proceedings.
Yadav and his wife have challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court, arguing that a subsequent consent agreement between the parties was not properly considered by the courts below. They have relied on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Gimpex Private Limited vs Manoj Goel, contending that the subsequent agreement should have brought the original complaint proceedings to an end.
The Delhi High Court had earlier dismissed their revision petitions, citing an extraordinary delay of 1,894 days in challenging the conviction. It also noted that despite repeated opportunities and concessions aimed at facilitating an amicable settlement, Yadav had failed to honour undertakings given before the court.
FOLLOW NOW
