Speaking to India TV after his release, Yadav thanked supporters and said public affection across generations had sustained his career. He urged industry colleagues who had previously worked with him to consider casting him again, emphasizing his willingness to collaborate on mutually agreed terms. He also acknowledged both supporters and critics on social media, stating that all reactions had shaped his journey.
The legal case stems from a ₹5-crore loan the actor took in 2010 from Murli Projects Private Limited to produce his film Ata Pata Lapata, which failed commercially. According to court records, Yadav was unable to repay the debt on schedule, and cheques issued to the lender were dishonoured. A complaint followed, and despite later settlement attempts, the dues remained unpaid as interest accumulated.
In 2018, a trial court at Karkardooma Court convicted him and sentenced him to six months in jail. He subsequently challenged the order in the High Court and obtained relief on several occasions after assuring payment. Earlier this month, however, the High Court declined to extend previous concessions and directed him to surrender. He complied the following day.
Granting interim bail now, the court allowed temporary release while proceedings continue, a decision legal observers say reflects procedural discretion rather than a final determination of liability. The underlying financial dispute remains subject to further compliance and court directions.
Yadav, known for his comic timing and character roles, has appeared in dozens of Hindi films over two decades. Industry analysts note that while legal troubles can affect casting prospects, public sympathy and professional goodwill often influence comeback opportunities, particularly for performers with established audience recognition.
The actor did not comment on the pending financial obligations but reiterated his intent to resume work immediately. “I need good roles,” he said, adding that he is prepared to work under producers’ terms if offered meaningful parts.
The case will return to court after the interim period, when compliance with earlier directives and payment commitments will likely be reviewed. Legal experts say the outcome will depend largely on whether outstanding dues are settled within the timeframe set by the court.
.jpg)
