Actor Rajpal Yadav Sentenced to Three Months in Jail for Cheque Bounce Cases

Actor Rajpal Yadav was sent back to jail for three months on Friday after a fresh Delhi High Court ruling in seven cheque bounce case over non-payment of loans worth around Rs 9 crore, as reported by PTI.

The Delhi High Court ordered Rajpal Yadav to pay over Rs 1 crore to complainant in each case, with amount already paid to be adjusted.

The court opened the case months after the actor claimed he had incurred losses amounting to Rs 17 crore in the whole process of making a movie.

Rajpal Yadav, who was recently in the news headlines for a cheque bounce case over non-payment of loans worth around Rs 9 crore, opened up about the case, saying he was not sent to jail as he didn't have money. The actor claimed he had incurred losses amounting to Rs 17 crore in the whole process.

In a podcast with Shubhankar Mishra, Rajpal Yadav said, "This is exactly the point of my case, it's not about not being able to pay Rs 5 crore. It's too early to speak on why I went to jail or whether I have the money or not. Had it just been a matter of Rs 5 crore, it would have been resolved in 2012 itself, but because of this Rs 5 crore, I have incurred losses of Rs 17 crore. At that time, the matter was not in court, when the person jeopardised my film's worth Rs 17 crore. After this person saw 70 percent of the film, he invested another Rs 5 crore."

Rajpal Yadav's case dates back to 2010 when the comedy actor borrowed Rs 5 crore from Murali Projects Pvt Ltd to finance his directorial debut, Ata Pata Laapata.

After the film failed commercially at the Box Office, Rajpal Yadav was unable to repay the loan, leading to legal action under the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was first convicted in 2018, with the decision upheld in 2019, and the amount eventually rising to nearly Rs 9 crore.

Earlier this year, he surrendered and was sent to jail before being granted interim bail after depositing a sum of Rs 1.5 crore.

In April, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had reserved judgment in the matter when a final round of settlement efforts failed despite sustained intervention by the court.