New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday quashed the FIR registered against YouTuber Elvish Yadav by Uttar Pradesh Police in the 2023 snake venom case. Yadav, 29, was booked under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and the Indian Penal Code.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh quashed the FIR and all subsequent criminal proceedings against Yadav. It noted that the material recovered was not snake venom but anti-bodies of snake venom, which does not fall under the ambit of the NDPS Act. “Insofar as the issue pertaining to Section 2(23) of NDPS Act is concerned, admittedly what is recovered from the co-accused cannot come within the purview of psychotropic substances found in the schedule (of the Act),” the bench said.
On charges under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the court noted that the complaint invoking the special statute was not filed as per law, which requires a designated authority to file a complaint. Besides, the court flagged procedural irregularity in filing of the chargesheet in the case. “We find that Section 55 of the Act requires a complaint by an authorised authority,” the bench said.
Even as the top court did not find merit in the NDPS case, it granted liberty to an authorised person to file the complaint, if need be, under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
Big Boss OTT 2023 winner Elvish Yadav, along with his associates, was accused of organising rave parties in Noida and the Delhi-NCR, where “venomous snakes and snake venom were procured and consumed, along with other narcotic substances”.
Yadav, represented by senior advocate Mukta Gupta and Raman Yadav, argued that the material recovered by police was, in fact, anti-bodies of snake venom.
Also Read: Wild card to wildlife, Elvish Yadav has ‘systumm’ wrapped around his finger
Complaint against Elvish Yadav
The complainant in the FIR, Gaurav Gupta, is an animal rights activist also associated with Maneka Gandhi founded-People For Animals (PFA). Gupta in his complaint said he received information from an undisclosed informant that Elvish Yadav, along with his associates, was engaged in organising rave parties in Noida and the Delhi-NCR, where snake venom was procured and consumed, along with other narcotic substances.
Gupta alleged Yadav sought his assistance in arranging for various species of snakes and cobra venom for an upcoming rave party in Noida. Yadav, said Gupta, allegedly provided him with the contact details of a man named Rahul—a snake charmer—and directed the informant to use Yadav’s reference to facilitate the procurement of snakes.
When the informant contacted him, Rahul confirmed his association with Yadav and agreed to deliver the snakes at Chevron Banquet Hall, Sector 51, Noida on 2 November. As Rahul and his team arrived at the designated banquet hall, allegedly in possession of snakes, Noida Police and officials from the forest department raided the premises—at the complainant’s suggestion—and allegedly seized 20ml of liquid and nine snakes.
They arrested five individuals under IPC and the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
In the process of investigating Rahul and based on his confessions, the police recovered two other cobra snakes.
A register allegedly containing details of certain bookings was also subsequently recovered from Elvish Yadav’s village on 16 March 2024. Although the register did not contain Yadav’s name, he was arrested the next day, on 17 March. A court granted him bail five days later.
Charges against him under the Wildlife (Protection) Act included misuse of snakes and snake venom for, and involvement in, recording videos and organising rave parties.
What Elvish Yadav told SC
In April that year, Noida Police filed a chargesheet in the case.
And in July, the magistrate passed an order taking cognisance of most of the offences mentioned in the chargesheet.
Elvish Yadav moved the Allahabad High Court nine months later, in April 2025, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR as well as the consequential chargesheet and the magistrate’s order taking cognisance of it.
The high court in May 2025 dismissed his petition observing that the allegations made in the chargesheet were graver than those in the FIR and held that the disputed facts could be examined only during trial.
Then, Yadav moved the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court order.
“The popularity or position of the accused cannot be basis of extension of protection and as per law of this land each and every person irrespective of his popularity or personality are equal in the eye of law,” ruled the bench of Allahabad HC Justice Saurabh Srivastava, adding that the arguments made by Yadav’s counsel cannot be accepted.
In the top court, the content creator sought quashing of all charges against him, appealing against the high court order.
Yadav told the court that the police’s charge that “snake venom” was recovered and that it has effects similar to morphine is directly contradicted by the record.
In his affidavit, he submitted: “The FSL report categorically establishes that no snake venom was recovered; rather, the sample tested only positive for anti-bodies of snake venom, which are not scheduled substances under the NDPS Act. Moreover, the opinion of the six-member expert committee relied upon by the respondent pertains exclusively to snake venom, not to anti-bodies of snake venom, which is the substance reported by the FSL; the committee never examined, nor expressed any opinion on antibodies, rendering its report wholly irrelevant to the facts of the present case.”
“The FSL report categorically states that what was detected were anti-bodies of snake venom, which do not find mention in the Schedule to the NDPS Act. The investigating agency cannot, by interpretation or inference, create or expand an offence beyond what is expressly provided in the statute,” the affidavit went on to add.
Further, Yadav’s counsel argued that there was no direct role attributed to the Elvish since the Noida Police alleged that he was in contact with Vinay who, in turn, was in contact with Ishwar, and Ishwar was in contact with co-accused Rahul.
On invocation of charges relating to negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substances and with respect to animals, which were found on a video wherein the chargesheet alleged that Yadav handled snakes in a cruel or dangerous manner, Elvish submitted that the video shoot was conducted pursuant to prior permission duly obtained from the competent authority.
He added that it was on the basis of the very same footage that a separate FIR was lodged on the complaint of Saurabh Gupta, brother of complainant Gaurav Gupta, in the present FIR, and that a closure report had already been filed in this case in November 2024.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)