The Allahabad High Court has denied relief to YouTuber and reality show influencer Elvish Yadav in the ongoing snake venom case, emphasizing that an individual’s fame or status cannot be a ground for exemption from legal proceedings.

"The popularity or position of the accused cannot be the basis for extension of protection... each and every person, irrespective of their popularity or personality, is equal in the eyes of law," Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed in an order passed last month.

Yadav had challenged the charge sheet, the cognisance and summoning order issued by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and sought quashing of the entire proceedings initiated under various provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Appearing for Yadav, Senior Advocate Navin Sinha, along with Advocates Nipun Singh and Naman Agarwal, argued that the complainant lacked the authority to file an FIR under the Wildlife Act. It was further submitted that Yadav was not present at the party where the alleged offence occurred, and no incriminating material was recovered from him.

The defence contended that Yadav’s celebrity status and widespread popularity had unduly influenced the case, leading police to invoke NDPS Act provisions — including sections 27 and 27A — immediately after his arrest. The petitioners also argued that Yadav was approached by music producers in June 2023 to shoot a video featuring snakes, which were claimed to be non-poisonous and kept as pets by the producers. No animal or person was harmed during the shoot, and thus, the stringent NDPS provisions were allegedly not applicable.

However, opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, representing the State, along with Advocate Pankaj Saxena, and Advocate Srijan Pandey for the informant, argued that Yadav’s contentions must be examined during the course of the trial. The Court agreed with this view, observing that the disputed facts and defences raised could only be evaluated during trial proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, paving the way for the trial to proceed.

Case Title: Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth vs. State of U.P. and Another (2025)