![JMA – Ninja & Deep Jandu [Official MV] Kaptaan](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-dsfIh319s0/maxresdefault.jpg "JMA – Ninja & Deep Jandu [Official MV] Kaptaan")
New Delhi: Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, best known for his comic timing and effortless acting style is dealing with a legal battle and recently his final attempt to evade jail was put to the backburner after Delhi High Court denied him bail in the cheque bounce cases. The actor made an emotional statement moments before surrendering at Tihar Jail.
According to Mint, Rajpal Yadav said, “Sir, kya karoon? Mere paas paise nahin hain. Aur koi upaay nahin dikhta… Sir, yahan hum sab akele hain. There are no friends. I have to deal with this crisis on my own.”
Rajpal Yadav surrenders in Tihar jail
Add Zee News as a Preferred Source
On Feb 6, 2026, Senior Advocate Abhijat appeared for Rajpal and said that the actor would pay a Rs 25 lakh amount today itself and that a repayment schedule for the balance amount has also been tentatively agreed to between the two sides. However, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that the actor had to surrender yesterday (Wednesday) and, therefore, he would be heard only after he hands himself over to the jail authorities.
Therefore, Rajpal Yadav surrendered at Tihar jail.
About Rajpal Yadav’s case
According to ANI, the High Court had earlier withdrawn the leniency extended to Yadav and directed him to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by February 4, 2026, at 4 PM. The Court held that the actor had repeatedly violated undertakings given to clear settlement dues.
The sentence awarded by the trial court had been suspended in June 2024 to facilitate settlement between the parties. The Court noted that such relief had been granted solely on the basis of assurances that the dispute would be amicably resolved and payments would be made.
The Court further observed that even partial payments promised through demand drafts and instalment schedules were not deposited within the stipulated time. Rejecting explanations relating to technical or typographical errors in demand drafts, the Court held that such reasons did not inspire confidence, particularly in view of the consistent pattern of default.
