The Delhi High Court on Thursday took up Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav’s bail application in the cheque bounce case and sought a reply from the complainant. The matter has now been listed for hearing on February 16, after a request was made on behalf of the actor. During the proceedings, the court also made pointed remarks about Yadav’s past conduct, noting that earlier assurances given to the Court had not been fulfilled. Here is a clear look at what transpired in court.
Here are 10 points that explain what happened during Rajpal Yadav's case in Delhi High Court:
- The Delhi High Court sought a reply from the complainant on Rajpal Yadav’s bail application.
- The matter has been listed for hearing on February 16, at the request of Yadav’s counsel.
- During the hearing, Yadav’s lawyer informed the Court that a bail application had been filed and requested that the complainant be directed to file a response.
- The counsel submitted that he had been unable to contact the actor and sought time till Monday, assuring the court that he would work out something by then.
- Accepting this request, the bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma directed the complainant to file a reply to the bail application and adjourned the matter to Monday for further consideration.
- The Court made strong observations regarding Yadav’s conduct, stating, “You have gone to jail because you didn’t honour your own commitment.”
- The bench noted that on at least two dozen occasions, Yadav had made statements saying he would honour his commitment and pay the money, but failed to do so.
- While examining the case file, the Court observed that several aspects had emerged and pointed out that the earlier order had already been challenged before the Supreme Court, which did not grant any relief.
- The High Court had earlier withdrawn the leniency granted to Yadav in a series of cheque dishonour cases and directed him to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent, observing that he had repeatedly breached undertakings regarding payment of settlement amounts.
- The sentence awarded by the trial court had earlier been suspended to facilitate settlement. However, the Court found that the commitments made over time were not honoured, leading to the present proceedings.
The case will now be taken up again on February 16 after the complainant files a reply to the bail plea, as the Delhi High Court considers whether any relief can be granted.
