‘Popularity No Shield from Law’: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Case Against Influencer Elvish Yadav

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition by social media influencer Elvish Yadav seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him in a high-profile case involving the use of snakes during a music video shoot, and alleged drug and wildlife offences.

Yadav had moved the court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), challenging the charge-sheet filed on April 5, 2024, the subsequent summoning order dated April 8, 2024, and the entire criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 461 of 2023. The case, which began with an FIR registered at Sector-49 Police Station in Noida, accuses Yadav and others of violating provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, IPC, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Yadav’s counsel, senior advocate Naveen Sinha, argued that the FIR itself was flawed, having been lodged by an Animal Welfare Officer — a person not authorized under Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act to initiate prosecution. He also alleged that the proceedings were motivated by media sensationalism stemming from the applicant's celebrity status, and that the snakes featured in the controversial video were non-poisonous pets used during the shoot without any harm caused.

Further, it was contended that there was no substantive evidence linking Yadav to any offence under the NDPS Act or the Indian Penal Code, and that sections 27 and 27A of the NDPS Act were hastily invoked by police in a bid to sensationalize the arrest.

However, the Additional Advocate General for the State and counsel for the complainant argued that a detailed investigation had been carried out, and a prima facie case had emerged against Yadav warranting a trial. They emphasized that the points raised by the applicant are matters of defense and ought to be considered during trial rather than at the pre-trial stage.

After hearing all parties, Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that the trial court had rightly taken cognizance after the investigating officer filed a charge-sheet based on new evidence that went beyond the original FIR. The judge remarked that “popularity or position of the accused cannot be basis of extension of protection” and reiterated that every individual stands equal before the law.

"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," court observed.

Holding that the issues raised by Yadav's counsel could be appropriately examined during the course of trial, the High Court dismissed the application stating that it lacked merit.

Case Title: Elvish Yadav @Siddhartha vs State of UP and Another