Back
Supreme Court Warns Rajpal Yadav 'Not Acting' as It Extends Deposit Deadline by Two Weeks
The , on , granted Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav a final two-week extension to deposit ₹5 crore with the court registry, while simultaneously extending his protection from surrender until . The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, delivered a sharp observation that the actor should not be "acting" in court, referencing his that failed to inspire confidence. The order came in a batch of seven cases stemming from a financial dispute with .
Background of the Cheque Dishonour Cases
Rajpal Yadav was convicted by a trial court under , for dishonour of cheques issued to . The upheld the conviction, imposing three months' imprisonment in each case, with . Yadav challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court, which had initially on temporarily exempted him from surrendering to custody, conditional upon depositing ₹5 crore with the registry. The condition was set to be fulfilled by , but Yadav failed to comply within that timeframe.
The September 15 Hearing
During the hearing,
, representing Yadav, sought an additional two weeks to deposit the amount. He informed the bench that Yadav had already undergone about four and a half months of incarceration in connection with the matter.
"He has already suffered jail time - about four and a half months. Kindly give him two weeks. Kindly call it after two weeks. I will try to comply,"
Patwalia pleaded.
The bench, however, expressed reservations. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked,
"He is an actor in Bollywood. We hope he is not acting here also. His
does not inspire confidence."
Despite the stern warning, the court granted the extension as a "
," stating,
"As a
, two weeks’ time is granted to honor the order. Post the matter thereafter."
The court further directed Yadav to submit his passport to the court registry, ensuring his continued availability and compliance.
Legal Implications of the Condition
The imposition of a substantial deposit of ₹5 crore as a condition for is a significant judicial tool in criminal appeals, particularly where the accused is a public figure. The Supreme Court's approach underscores its reluctance to allow celebrities to evade consequences of financial crimes while using their status to delay proceedings. By conditioning the exemption on a monetary deposit, the court ensures that the accused has a in the litigation and that the complainant's interests are protected.
The court's observation regarding Yadav's " " indicates that it considered his previous compliance record. Such judicial scrutiny of an appellant's behaviour is common in criminal appeals, especially when the court exercises its discretionary power under to grant relief from . The order to surrender the passport further restricts Yadav's ability to leave the country, a measure often employed to prevent .
Impact on Legal Practice
This case highlights the nuanced role of the Supreme Court in managing criminal appeals involving high-profile individuals. Legal practitioners should note that the court is willing to extend deadlines but only under strict conditions and with explicit warnings about future compliance. The use of a tied to a surrender exemption is not unprecedented, but the court's explicit reference to the actor's profession and the possibility of "acting" adds a layer of judicial candour that may influence future arguments.
For advocates handling similar cases, this ruling underscores the importance of demonstrating with court orders. The court's emphasis on " " serves as a reminder that a history of can erode in favour of the accused. Additionally, the requirement to deposit a substantial sum before obtaining relief from surrender may set a precedent for other cases where the accused has the financial means but questionable credibility.
Conclusion
Rajpal Yadav now has until to deposit ₹5 crore and submit his passport. Failure to comply will likely result in the revocation of his and immediate arrest. The matter will be listed after that date for further hearing. For the legal community, this order reaffirms the Supreme Court's willingness to balance individual liberty with the need for judicial accountability, especially when the appellant is a public figure with a checkered compliance history. The next hearing will be closely watched to see whether Yadav meets the court's conditions or faces the consequences of his "acting."
