The Allahabad High Court refused to provide legal protection to YouTuber and influencer Elvish Yadav in the ongoing Snake Venom case. The Court firmly stated that popularity or social status cannot be grounds for legal relief and that all individuals are equal in the eyes of the law.
"The popularity or position of the accused cannot be basis of extension of protection and as per law of this land each and every person irrespective of his popularity or personality are equal in the eye of law,"
Observed Justice Saurabh Srivastava while dismissing the application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Two Men Accused of Reciting Hanuman Chalisa Near Mosque in Meerut
Elvish Yadav had approached the High Court challenging the charge-sheet dated April 5, 2024, and the summoning order dated April 8, 2024, issued by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar. He also sought to quash the entire proceedings under various sections of the Wildlife Protection Act, IPC, and NDPS Act.
Senior Advocate Naveen Sinha, appearing for Yadav along with Advocates Nipun Singh and Naman Agarwal, argued that the FIR was invalid as it was filed by an Animal Welfare Officer, who is not authorized under Section 55 of the Wildlife Act. They also pointed out that no recovery was made from Yadav and he was not even present during the party where the alleged incident took place.
They claimed that Yadav was dragged into the matter due to his celebrity status, which led the police to invoke stringent sections of the NDPS Act, including Sections 27 and 27A, without sufficient evidence. His legal team further explained that Yadav was involved in a music video shoot in June 2023, where non-poisonous snakes were used. These snakes were reportedly pets of the producers, and no harm was caused to any human or animal during the shoot.
Despite these arguments, the State represented by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and the complainant’s counsel Advocate Srijan Pandey opposed the plea. They argued that the charges made against Yadav required a detailed trial and that the matter should be properly adjudicated in court.
"The allegations which have been contradicted by learned counsel for applicant on the basis of some relevant facts are amenable to be examined by learned trial court during the course of trial only," the court stated.
Emphasizing the principle of equality before the law, the Court rejected all submissions that sought relief based on Yadav’s public image or celebrity status.
"The instant application under section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is hereby dismissed," concluded the Court.
Case title - Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 168
