The Delhi High Court on Thursday slammed Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav’s conduct in a check-bounce case, saying he went to jail for refusing to honor his promise to pay dues on time.
Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav (PTI File)The strong comment came from Justice Swarana Kant Sharma during the hearing of Yadav’s bail plea, seeking suspension of his sentence due to a marriage in the family.
“You didn’t go to jail because the court gave an order. You went to jail because you failed to keep your promise,” Justice Sharma said, adding that it was Yadav who settled with the complainant in the first place.
Yadav’s lawyer argued that he was misled during the proceedings and expressed his desire to settle the matter. But the claim was rejected by the judge, who pointed to the long delay in payment.
“You appeared 20 to 30 times before this court and were assisted by a senior counsel who gave statements on your behalf. Mr. Yadav appeared before me at least five times through VC (video conference) and said that I will respect the statement of my lawyer. You are not confused,” the bench said.
More Read
The judge also questioned Yadav’s plea seeking stay of sentence, saying, “You have been sentenced since you have been convicted and have accepted that you will pay. Now that you have been sentenced, you are asking for stay of sentence?”
The court also pointed to the protracted legal process in the case.
“…You said you will seek settlement, went to mediation and said you will pay. For years you have not paid. Now you want to reopen the case,” the court said.
More Read
Justice Sharma said the court could be sympathetic to Yadav but it could not go beyond the prescribed legal framework.
The conviction stemmed from a criminal complaint filed by a private firm, M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd, which alleged that Yadav ₹5 Crores in 2010 for the production of Ata Pata Lapata film ₹8 crores. But he allegedly failed to fulfill this promise.
The company also claimed that although the loan was scheduled for repayment on three separate occasions, one was later settled ₹7 crores, seven checks related to settlement bounced.
During Thursday’s hearing, the firm contended that Yadav cannot claim that he was misled as the same lawyer, who had made multiple affidavits before the bench, appeared for Yadav in all the hearings.
After issuing a notice to the complainant, the court adjourned the bail application for further hearing on Monday.
