Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav failed to secure immediate bail on Thursday as the Delhi High Court deferred the hearing on his application in a long-running cheque bounce case.

According to Indian media reports, the court expressed strong displeasure over the actor’s repeated failure to honour payment commitments and adjourned the matter until Monday.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee Sharma observed that Yadav had assured the court on at least two dozen occasions that he would clear his dues but had failed to do so.

“You went to jail because you did not fulfil your own promise,” the judge remarked.

The court also criticised inconsistencies in the defence’s position, noting that earlier the actor’s lawyer had said the amount would be paid directly to the complainant, while it was now being suggested that it be deposited in court. The judge directed the counsel to present a clear stance.

Yadav’s lawyer told the court that he had been unable to contact his client but had filed the bail application. He requested time to seek a response from the complainant, which the court accepted.

The court directed the opposing party to submit its reply and postponed further proceedings until Monday.

In his bail plea, Yadav sought interim relief, citing a family wedding.

The actor’s legal troubles began in 2010 when he borrowed Rs50 million from a private company for his directorial venture Ata Pata Laapata. The film failed commercially, and the outstanding amount reportedly rose to around Rs90 million.

In 2018, a magistrate’s court convicted Yadav and his wife, Radha Yadav, under the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them to six months’ imprisonment.

In June 2024, the Delhi High Court suspended the sentence and directed the actor to pursue a sincere settlement with the complainant company, Murli Projects Private Limited.

However, during recent hearings, the court noted that payment assurances had not been honoured and ordered Yadav to surrender by February 4. He is currently lodged in Tihar Jail.

Yadav has maintained that the amount was an investment, not a loan, and that the cheques were issued as security. He has expressed confidence in the judicial process.

The case will be taken up again on Monday.