Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) [India], May 12: The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed the plea filed by YouTuber Elvish Yadav challenging the chargesheet in a high-profile case alleging the illegal use of snakes and snake venom in YouTube videos and rave parties.
Justice Saurabh Srivastava, while hearing the case, stated that there are substantial allegations in the chargesheet and FIR that warrant examination during the trial. He further noted that Elvish Yadav’s petition had not contested the FIR itself.
The case stems from an FIR filed at Sector-49 Police Station in Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, which accuses Yadav of being involved in organizing rave parties where foreigners allegedly encouraged the consumption of snake venom and other narcotic substances. It is also alleged that snakes were misused to shoot content for social media platforms.
Representing Yadav, Senior Advocate Naveen Sinha, assisted by Advocate Nipun Singh, argued that the informant lacked the legal authority to file the FIR under the Wildlife Protection Act. They also contended that Yadav was neither present at the party in question nor was anything illicit recovered from him.
Countering the defense, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal maintained that investigations pointed to Yadav supplying the snakes found during the raids, linking him directly to the offences.
Unconvinced by the defense’s claims, the court dismissed the plea, affirming that the matter would be properly addressed during trial proceedings.
Elvish Yadav has been chargesheeted under multiple laws: Sections 9, 39, 48A, 49, 50, and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act; Sections 284, 289, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code; and Sections 8, 22, 29, 30, and 32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
A summons has also been issued by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Gautam Buddh Nagar. Yadav argued that his celebrity status led to heightened media scrutiny, pressuring the police to invoke serious charges—some of which were later dropped due to lack of evidence.
Despite arguments about procedural lapses and absence of direct evidence, the court ruled that such matters would be thoroughly scrutinized during the trial.