Rajpal Yadav Offers To Sell Ancestral Property; Supreme Court Grants Time Till Oct 13 In Cheque Bounce Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed actor Rajpal Yadav to deposit ₹2 crore in the cheque-bounce case against him by October 13. Yadav, who was present in the Court during the hearing today submitted a demand draft of ₹1.15 crore with him.

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana has asked the remaining ₹85 lakh be paid by October 13.

Court agreed with the Bollywood actor's proposal to sell his ancestral property to raise funds towards the dues. Yadav’s counsel told the Court that the ancestral property was valued at over Rs 30 crore, although its registration could not immediately be completed due to the ongoing Pitru Paksha period.

Following the order, the bench had an informal conversation with Yadav, who reportedly raised the financial difficulties caused by his film Ata Pata Laapata (2012). The CJI made a joking remark that the title of the movie is equivalent to his behaviour and said, “Like your movie, your money is also Ata Pata Laapata, gayab.” Yadav then greeted the bench with “Pranam karta hoon” and narrated how he had faced losses of ₹200-250 crores through this movie.

"Koi nayi movie aa rahi hai? Koi achi si movie banake logo ko dobara entertain karo. Aapki image dobara ban jaegi. Humare yahan kuch advocate bhi ache actor hain..," CJI went on to tell Yadav.

Two days back, court had come down heavily on Actor Rajpal Yadav for not complying with its directions to deposit ₹5 Crore.

Notably, on September 8 the court had asked Yadav to deposit the sum within a day's time while granting him protection. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana had passed the order after the petitions filed by Yadav and his wife were orally mentioned by AoR Saurabh Trivedi.

An SLP has been filed by Yadav challenging the Delhi High Court's July decision upholding Bollywood actor's conviction in multiple cheque bounce cases, refusing to interfere with the findings of the trial court and declining his plea for probation. The High Court observed that repeated breaches of undertakings and disregard for the judicial process disentitled him from seeking leniency.

Recognising that Yadav may seek further legal remedies, the High Court had granted him two months' protection from the execution of the sentence to enable him to approach a higher court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Yadav and others challenging their conviction and sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

While affirming the conviction, the Court made a sharp observation on the sanctity of judicial proceedings, remarking: "Law is not a script that can be rewritten at the will of an actor."

The Court had noted that despite repeated opportunities, Yadav had failed to honour his commitments to the complainant and had repeatedly defaulted on undertakings given before the courts. Refusing to extend the benefit of probation, Justice Sharma recorded that the actor had shown little regard for the judicial process.

Court also took note of a statement attributed to Yadav during the proceedings, observing that he had said he would "go to jail five more times" rather than pay the complainant. The Court treated the remark as indicative of his conduct and unwillingness to comply with legal obligations.

While maintaining the conviction, the High Court modified the sentence imposed upon the actor. It directed that Yadav shall undergo three months' simple imprisonment in each of the seven cheque bounce cases, with all sentences running concurrently. The Court also imposed a fine of ₹1.05 crore in each of the seven cases.

Court had also modified the sentence imposed upon Yadav's wife, Radha Rajpal Yadav, who was also facing proceedings in the matter. She was directed to pay a fine of ₹5.51 lakh in each of the seven cheque bounce cases. In the event of default, she will undergo three months' simple imprisonment, with all default sentences to run concurrently.

The petitions arose from multiple prosecutions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning dishonoured cheques issued by the accused. The actor had challenged both the findings of guilt and the sentence awarded by the trial court.

The case relates to Yadav’s failure to repay a loan taken from the complainant, despite multiple undertakings given before the trial court and appellate forums. After continued non-compliance with court directions and failure to honour settlement assurances, Yadav was taken into custody to serve his sentence.Yadav surrendered to authorities on January 12, 2026, after a non-bailable warrant was issued against him in connection with a cheque bounce and recovery case. Following his surrender, Yadav was taken into judicial custody, where he remains as the High Court hears his bail application.

Case Title: Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr. v. M/S Murali Projects Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: October 7, 2026