Allahabad High Court dismisses YouTuber Elvish Yadav's plea in snake venom case

Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) [India], May 12 (ANI): The Allahabd High Court on Monday dismissed YouTuber Elvish Yadav's plea against the chargesheet filed in the FIR against him, which alleged that snakes and snake venom were misused by him to make YouTube videos.
The allegations against him also include organising rave parties and inviting foreigners who make people consume snake venom and other drugs.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava dismissed his plea while orally remarking that there are statements in the chargesheet and FIR against Yadav, and the veracity of such allegations will be examined during the trial. The single judge also said that Yadav has not challenged the FIR in the plea.
Senior advocate Naveen Sinha, appearing for Elvish Yadav, assisted by advocate Nipun Singh, argued that the person who has lodged the FIR against Yadav is not competent to register the FIR under the Wildlife Act. He also argued that neither Yadav was present at the party nor anything was recovered from him.
On the other hand, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal argued that investigation has revealed that Yadav had supplied snakes to the persons from whom the seizures were made.
Unswayed by the arguments of Yadav's counsel, the court dismissed the plea and effectively left it to the trial court to investigate the allegations.
For reference, Elvish Yadav has been chargesheeted under Sections 9, 39, 48A, 49, 50 and 51 of Wildlife Protection Act and Sections 284, 289 and 120B of IPC and Sections 8, 22, 29, 30 and 32 of NDPS Act in the FIR lodged at Police Station Sector-49, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
A summons order has also been issued by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
He challenged the chargesheet and the proceedings on the ground that the informant was not a competent person to lodge an FIR under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. It is pleaded that no snake, narcotic or psychotropic substance has been recovered from the applicant. Lastly, it is pleaded that no causal connection has been established between the applicant and the other co-accused.
Yadav pleaded that though the informant is no longer an animal welfare officer, he has lodged the FIR by posing as an animal welfare officer.
Further, it was pleaded that, "It is a well-known fact that the applicant is an influential person and appears on several reality shows on television, and inevitably the involvement of the applicant in the instant FIR attracted great attention of the media. Consequently, influenced by the aforesaid attention, the police officers attempted to make the case more sensitive by invoking Sections 27 and 27A the NDPS Act immediately after arresting the applicant. However, the police officers failed to prove the additional charges, and as such, they were dropped." (ANI)