The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the FIR and all related proceedings against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in the 2023 snake venom case filed by Uttar Pradesh Police. The court essentially said the case, as it stood, could not hold up legally. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh pointed out a key issue. The complaint under the Wildlife (Protection) Act had not been filed by an authorised person. That alone, the bench noted, made the proceedings unsustainable.
Elvish Yadav snake venom case: What happened inside the court?
The bench also looked at the IPC charges linked to the FIR surrounding Elvish Yadav, as per PTI. It said these were tied to an earlier case registered in Gurugram, where a closure report had already been filed. That weakened the basis of invoking those sections against Yadav.
On the NDPS angle, the court made another observation. It said the liquid substance, described as anti-venom, recovered from a co-accused was not listed as a prohibited substance under the Act’s schedule. Because of that, the NDPS provisions could not be applied in this case. Referring to earlier rulings, the bench said the case against Yadav could not be sustained in law. It went on to quash not just the FIR, but also the chargesheet and the cognisance order passed by the trial court.
Elvish Yadav was arrested in 2024 in snake venom case
The case dates back to November 22, 2023, when the FIR was registered. Yadav was arrested on March 17, 2024, over allegations that snake venom was used at a rave party in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
He had earlier challenged an Allahabad High Court order that refused to quash the chargesheet and the trial court’s cognisance order, calling it a serious offence. On August 6 last year, the apex court had already stayed proceedings in the trial court. The chargesheet had alleged the consumption of snake venom as a recreational drug at “rave” parties, including by foreigners. Yadav’s counsel, however, argued that no snakes, narcotics or psychotropic substances were recovered from him, and no direct link was established with the co-accused.
The defence had also said the informant was no longer an animal welfare officer, yet filed the FIR presenting himself as one. Calling Yadav a “well-known influencer” who appears in multiple reality shows, the counsel argued the case drew “much media attention”.
Also read: Do influencers share too much on social media? Elvish Yadav case raises questions
