- विज्ञापन -
Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh): The Allahabad High Court rejected YouTuber Elvish Yadav’s plea challenging the chargesheet filed in connection with an FIR accusing him of misusing snakes and snake venom to produce YouTube videos. The charges also include allegations of organizing rave parties, inviting foreigners, and encouraging people to consume snake venom and other drugs.
A bench led by Justice Saurabh Srivastava dismissed Yadav’s petition, noting that the chargesheet and FIR contain statements that will be examined during the trial. The judge further observed that Yadav had not challenged the FIR itself in his plea.
Elvish Yadav’s senior counsel, Naveen Sinha, along with advocate Nipun Singh, argued that the person who filed the FIR was not authorized to do so under the Wildlife Act. They also contended that Yadav was not present at the alleged party and that no evidence or substances were recovered from him.
In response, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal argued that investigation revealed Yadav had supplied snakes to individuals involved in the seizures. The court, however, was unconvinced by the defense and left the matter for the trial court to probe further.
Yadav faces charges under Sections 9, 39, 48A, 49, and 50 of the Wildlife Protection Act, as well as Sections 284, 289, and 120B of the IPC, and Sections 8, 22, 29, 30, and 32 of the NDPS Act, filed at Police Station Sector-49, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. A summons has also been issued by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Yadav challenged the chargesheet and proceedings, claiming the informant was not authorized to lodge the FIR under the Wildlife Act, and that no snake, narcotic, or psychotropic substances had been recovered from him. He also argued that no direct link has been established between him and the other accused. Additionally, Yadav alleged that the FIR was lodged by someone posing as an animal welfare officer, and he claimed that media attention and his fame on reality shows influenced the police to add charges under Sections 27 and 27A of the NDPS Act, which were eventually dropped due to lack of evidence.
