Supreme Court Dismisses FIR Against YouTuber Elvis Yadav in Snake Venom Case

Supreme Court's Ruling on Elvis Yadav's Case

On Thursday, the Supreme Court annulled the FIR filed by the Uttar Pradesh police against YouTuber Elvis Yadav concerning a snake venom incident from 2023. The court determined that the case could not legally stand in its current form. A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kottiswaran highlighted a critical issue: the complaint under the Wildlife (Protection) Act was not lodged by an authorized individual. The bench noted that this alone rendered the proceedings impractical.

Details of the Court Proceedings

The bench also examined the IPC charges against Yadav in the FIR. It pointed out that these allegations were linked to a prior case filed in Gurugram, which had already seen a closure report submitted. This connection weakened the basis for applying those charges against Yadav. Regarding the NDPS aspect, the court made an additional observation, stating that the liquid seized from a co-accused, claimed to be an antidote, is not listed as a prohibited substance under the Act's schedule. Consequently, the NDPS provisions could not be applied in this case. Citing previous rulings, the bench concluded that the case against Yadav was not sustainable from a legal perspective. It annulled not only the FIR but also the chargesheet and the cognizance order issued by the lower court.

Background of the Snake Venom Case

This case dates back to November 22, 2023, when the FIR was filed. Yadav was arrested on March 17, 2024, at a rave party in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, for allegedly using snake venom. He had previously challenged an order from the Allahabad High Court that denied the cancellation of the chargesheet and the cognizance order, labeling it a serious offense. On August 6 of the previous year, the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings of the lower court. The chargesheet alleged that snake venom was consumed as a recreational drug at rave parties, which included foreign attendees. However, Yadav's lawyer argued that no snakes, narcotics, or psychotropic substances were recovered from him, and no direct link to the co-accused was established. The defense also pointed out that the informant was no longer an animal welfare officer, yet he had filed the FIR claiming to be one. Highlighting Yadav's status as a well-known influencer who has appeared on several reality shows, the lawyer noted that the case had garnered significant media attention.