Snake Venom Case | 'Popularity Of Accused No Basis For Grant Of Protection': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Elvish Yadav

Denying relief to YouTuber Elvish Yadav in the Snake Venom case, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that all persons are equal before the law and that the popularity or position of the accused cannot be the basis of extension of protection to him. “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…,” a bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava remarked in it order passed last month. Yadav had moved the High Court against the charge-sheet and cognisance/summoning order passed by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, as well as the entire proceedings of the FIR lodged under several provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, IPC and the NDPS Act. Appearing for Yadav, Senior Counsel Navin Sinha, along with Advocate Nipun Singh, assisted by Advocate Naman Agarwal, argued that the person who filed the FIR against Yadav was not competent to file the same under the Wildlife Act. He also contended that neither Yadav was present in the party nor anything was recovered from him. It was also contended that Yadav is an influencer and appears in multiple reality shows on television, and his involvement in the instant FIR garnered much media attention and consequently, influenced by the said attention, the police officials also attempted to further sensitize the matter by invoking sections 27 & 27A of NDPS Act immediately after arresting him. It was also argued that Yadav enjoys a considerable level of stardom, various directors/producers signed applicant for their projects in a bid to appeal to his fan base, in such a similar vein the applicant was approached in month of June, 2023 to shoot for a song involving the use of snakes, which are to be seen in the alleged video of applicant. Lastly, it was submitted that the said snakes were completely harmless and non-poisonous and the pets of producers of the song and since no animal or person was hurt in any manner during the shoot of said video, Sections 19, 24, 27A of the NDPS Act were hardly attracted. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General for the State, as well as counsel for opposite party no.2, opposed Yadav's plea, contending that his arguments were to be examined during the trial and, as such, a prima facie offence had been made out against the applicant. Against this backdrop, noting that the allegations which have been contradicted by Yadav's counsel were to be examined by the trial court during the course of the trial only, the Court dismissed his plea. Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, assisted by Advocate Pankaj Saxena, appeared for the State and Advocate Srijan Pandey appeared for the informant/opposite party no.2. Case title - Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 168 Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 168 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Snake Venom Case | 'Popularity Of Accused No Basis For Grant Of Protection': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Elvish Yadav

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags