Rajpal Yadav’s case has an Amitabh Bachchan connection, claims lawyer. He explains how Big B is linked to Rs 9 crore cheque-bounce case

On February 16, actor Rajpal Yadav was granted interim bail by the Delhi High Court in the Rs 9 crore cheque-bounce case that recently led to his stay in Tihar jail. While the legal battle has been ongoing for years, new updates have now emerged. The actor’s lawyer has claimed that the origins of the dispute can be traced back to an incident involving megastar Amitabh Bachchan.

How Big B is linked to Rajpal Yadav's case

The complaint against Rajpal was filed by businessman Madhav Gopal Aggarwal, who had allegedly lent Rs 5 crore to the actor for his 2012 film Ata Pata Laapata. According to the legal documents, the two parties signed an initial agreement followed by three supplementary agreements until August 2012. Under the final agreement, Rajpal had issued five cheques to Aggarwal, which were to be encashed starting in December that year.

However, Rajpal’s counsel Bhaskar Upadhyay has now stated to Hindustan Times that the situation escalated months before the cheques were due.


Speaking about the turning point, the lawyer explained that tensions rose during the film’s music launch in September 2012. Amitabh Bachchan had graciously attended the event, but the complainant allegedly wanted to share the stage with the superstar.


According to the lawyer, “In September, Amitabh Bachchan stepped in for the film’s music launch, and the complainant wanted to share the stage with him. Rajpal’s team said no to that as Mr Bachchan wasn’t taking any favours for his presence, and the complainant got annoyed by that. He moved to the Delhi HC in September 2012 on the basis of that agreement, asking for a stay on the film until his dues were cleared. The case was dragged till December 2012 when he deposited the first cheque of Rs 60,60,350, which was honoured,” Bhaskar shares.

The legal battle did not end there. In 2013, both parties entered into a consent agreement, nullifying all previous agreements. A fresh consent decree was later passed in 2016, fixing the payable amount at Rs 10.40 crore. As per Upadhyay, the decree clearly stated that recovery should be pursued only through execution proceedings.

Legal twists and ongoing battle

An execution petition was subsequently filed in 2016, and Rs 1.90 crore was paid to the complainant. The lawyer further claimed that a guarantor, Anant Dattaram, had offered property worth Rs 15 crore as security and sought a month to settle the remaining dues. However, the complainant allegedly refused to accept the surety and instead sought imprisonment for Rajpal.


Bhaskar also pointed out what he described as a legal anomaly. While execution proceedings were underway, the complainant reportedly revived cheques from a previous supplementary agreement that had already been nullified under the consent terms. In March 2018, a trial court convicted Rajpal and imposed a fine of Rs 11.5 crore. Later that year, an execution court sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment for the same cause of action.

Calling the parallel proceedings questionable, the lawyer said Rajpal’s team has challenged the orders and is seeking a fair hearing on the merits. With interim bail now granted, the case remains sub judice, and further developments are awaited.