Today, On 18th February, The Supreme Court of India heard YouTuber Elvish Yadav’s plea to quash proceedings in a snake venom and rave party case in Uttar Pradesh. The court, which stayed steps in August 2025, adjourned the plea to review the NDPS invocation.
The Supreme Court heard a plea from YouTuber and influencer Elvish Yadav seeking to dismiss criminal proceedings against him concerning an alleged snake venom and rave party case in Uttar Pradesh. In August 2025, the court had previously stayed the trial court actions against Yadav.
The bench, comprised of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, deliberated on the maintainability of the case, especially relating to the application of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the NDPS Act, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
ALSO READ: Snake Venom Case | Supreme Court Separated Elvish Yadav’s Pleas for Hearing
Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, representing Yadav, presented a multi-faceted argument against the prosecution. She emphasized that according to Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, no court can initiate proceedings based solely on a police report; only complaints from authorized wildlife officials can instigate prosecution.
Citing Supreme Court cases such as State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and Jeevan Kumar Raut v. CBI, Gupta asserted that the cognizance taken in this case is legally barred.
Regarding the NDPS charges, Gupta argued that law enforcement had inappropriately “created an offence” not recognized by the statute. She highlighted that there was no evidence of snake venom recovery, no possession or consumption, and no relation to any scheduled psychotropic substance.
Further clarifying that snake venom does not fall under the NDPS framework, She stated,
“Criminal law cannot be expanded by investigative imagination,”
In addressing the factual assertions, Gupta claimed that there was no rave party, no guests, and nothing recovered from Yadav. She noted that he was not present at the alleged scene and that medical reports indicated the nine examined snakes were non-poisonous.
Gupta pointed out that the prosecution relied on a recycled YouTube video featuring Yadav, which had received the necessary permissions. She also mentioned that a separate FIR regarding the same video had already been closed in Gurugram, labeling the current case as a clear instance of duplication and harassment from a consistent group of complainants.
In opposition, the State of Uttar Pradesh’s counsel argued that the court should first evaluate whether the FIR indicated any criminal offence. Concerning the NDPS allegations, the State asserted that the understanding of psychotropic substances is evolving and that materials threatening societal safety cannot be excluded simply because they aren’t currently listed.
They also referenced call detail records and location data positioning Yadav near individuals linked to the case, raising questions about his use of a virtual number.
During the hearing, the bench expressed concern about the implications of such cases. Justice Sundresh remarked that if powerful individuals are perceived to be exploiting “voiceless victims,” it could convey a very bad message to society.
The court indicated it would rigorously assess the appropriate legal actions under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. Reiterating Yadav’s defense, his counsel maintained that a mere guest appearance in a video, absent evidence of a party or illegal activity, does not justify criminal prosecution.
The court granted the parties time to submit their counter affidavits and adjourned the matter, scheduling a further hearing in March.
The Allahabad High Court had recently dismissed a petition by Yadav aimed at quashing the criminal proceedings against him. Yadav had approached the court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), contesting the charge-sheet filed on April 5, 2024, the summoning order dated April 8, 2024, and the entire criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 461 of 2023.
This case originated from an FIR lodged at the Sector-49 Police Station in Noida, accusing Yadav and others of violating provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, IPC, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Yadav is charged under Sections 284, 120-B, and 289 of the IPC; Sections 8, 22, 29, 30, and 32 of the NDPS Act, 1985; and Sections 9, 39, 48A, 49, 50, and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
The case was initiated based on a complaint by Gaurav Gupta, a member of the NGO People for Animals. Gupta allegedly engaged in a sting operation, contacting Yadav through a provided number, and subsequently linked Yadav to five others who were arrested. Those interrogated reportedly informed the police that they were supplying snake venom for rave parties supposedly organized by Yadav.
Yadav, who was arrested on March 17, 2024, faces charges under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He was released on bail after 14 days in custody.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had granted interim relief to Elvish Yadav by staying the trial court proceedings related to the case. The court also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on Yadav’s plea, which challenges the FIR, chargesheet, and summoning order issued by the lower court.
Case Title: Elvish Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Elvish Yadav