Did the SC Stay the Trial Against Elvish Yadav in the Snake Venom Case?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has intervened in a high-profile case involving Elvish Yadav, halting trial court proceedings related to allegations of snake venom use at rave parties. This intriguing case explores the intersection of fame, legal accountability, and wildlife protection laws.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court intervened in a high-profile case involving Elvish Yadav.
- Yadav faces charges under the Wildlife Protection Act.
- The Allahabad High Court previously rejected his plea to quash the case.
- The case raises questions about media influence and legal proceedings for public figures.
- Elvish was arrested for allegedly using snake venom at parties.
New Delhi, Aug 6 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has intervened, halting the ongoing trial court proceedings against YouTuber and former Bigg Boss OTT 2 champion Elvish Yadav. He is facing serious accusations under the Wildlife Protection Act along with other legal provisions regarding the alleged acquisition and utilization of snake venom at rave parties in Noida and the NCR region.
A bench featuring Justices M.M. Sundresh and Joymalya Bagchi issued a notice concerning a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Elvish, challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision to dismiss his request to quash the criminal proceedings currently before a court in Gautam Buddha Nagar.
Previously, the Allahabad High Court rejected Elvish's plea under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), emphasizing that the allegations against him should be scrutinized during the trial rather than dismissed at the pre-trial phase.
A bench led by Justice Saurabh Srivastava dismissed claims that Elvish's notoriety as an influencer and reality star had unfairly attracted media scrutiny, which allegedly prompted the prosecution to embellish the case by introducing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act right after his arrest.
“The fame or position of the accused cannot serve as grounds for extending protection; under our legal framework, every individual, regardless of their popularity, is treated equally,” observed the Allahabad High Court.
Elvish was apprehended on allegations of utilizing snake venom as a recreational substance at parties he supposedly organized.
This YouTuber, who later secured bail, was implicated alongside other suspects in a First Information Report registered at the Sector 49 police station in Noida on November 3, 2023, following a complaint lodged by the animal rights NGO People for Animals (PFA).
Following the FIR by the Gautam Buddh Nagar Police, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated a parallel investigation against the influencer under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), questioning him about various issues, including details of the rave parties, the sourcing of snake venom, and its distribution.
According to the computerized case status on the apex court’s online portal, Elvish's SLP is tentatively scheduled for a hearing on September 23.
Senior advocate Mukta Gupta, supported by advocates Raman Yadav and Aman Jha, represented Elvish in the Supreme Court.
Point of View
Our commitment remains to uphold the principles of justice and fairness. The ongoing case against Elvish Yadav exemplifies the complexities of legal proceedings involving public figures. The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the trial reflects the need for a meticulous examination of allegations within the framework of law, ensuring that due process is not overlooked amidst media scrutiny.
NationPress
20/08/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What charges does Elvish Yadav face?
Elvish Yadav is facing charges under the Wildlife Protection Act along with other legal provisions for allegedly procuring and using snake venom at rave parties.
What was the Supreme Court's decision?
The Supreme Court stayed the trial court proceedings against Elvish Yadav, allowing him to challenge the criminal case filed against him.
What is the significance of this case?
This case highlights the intersection of celebrity culture, legal accountability, and wildlife protection laws, raising questions about the treatment of influencers in the legal system.
