In a recent development that has caught the attention of online and offline audiences alike, a Gautam Buddh Nagar court has extended bail to Siddharth Yadav, popularly known by his YouTube moniker Elvish Yadav, in relation to a drug case. The decision, made public on March 22, arrives six days subsequent to Yadav’s entry into custody at a Noida jail, as stated by his legal representatives.
The narrative of Yadav’s bail involves a complex legal dance, with his departure from incarceration not signaling immediate freedom. Instead, jail officials have clarified that his release papers have been prepared, yet his immediate future involves being handed over to the jurisdiction of a court in Gurugram, Haryana. Here, on March 23, he will confront charges in a separate assault matter tied to an incident with content creator Sagar Thakur, known as Maxtern. The court will convene to deliberate on this case on March 27.
Yadav’s initial arrest by the Noida Police on March 17 marked the culmination of an investigation that focused on the alleged use of snake venom during festivities reputedly initiated by the YouTuber. His legal team, including advocates Prashant Rathi and Deepak Bhati, successfully argued for his conditional release which mandates him to submit two bail bonds valued at ₹50,000 each.
The controversial YouTuber, 26, recognized for emerging victorious on the reality show Bigg Boss OTT 2, is being prosecuted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as per police statements.
The Luksar Jail Superintendent, Mr. Arun Pratap Singh, confirmed the arrival of the court’s release order for Yadav. Furthermore, Singh highlighted the reception of a production warrant issued for Yadav that necessitates his appearance in Gurugram court. According to Singh, the determination of whether Yadav will be discharged or remain enclosed within prison walls falls within the purview of the Gurugram court. Shedding light on bureaucratic processes, he disclosed that the transportation of Yadav to Gurugram, which is also his place of residence, is slated for Saturday, to be coordinated by the Luksar Jail authorities.
In the midst of all this, Yadav’s notoriety was amplified when police placed his name among six others in an FIR filed at Noida’s Sector 49 police station on November 3, last year. This action stemmed from a complaint by an emissary of the animal rights advocate group People for Animals (PFA). While the other accused, all identified as snake charmers, have been apprehended in November and subsequently released on bail, the spotlight remained on Yadav.
The charges encapsulated in the FIR include criminal conspiracy, negligent conduct pertaining to poison that jeopardizes human safety, and negligent conduct concerning animals under the respective sections of the IPC and provisions in the Wildlife Protection Act. The investigation also incorporated elements of the NDPS Act into the allegations.
Incidents leading to these charges reveal that on November 3 of the preceding year, five snake charmers were arrested at a banquet hall in Noida Sector 51. Authorities rescued nine snakes, including cobras, and seized 20 ml of what is suspected to be snake venom. However, police have clarified that Yadav was not present at the scene of the crime, promulgating that his role was yet under scrutiny.
Compounding the legal and public relations quagmire for Yadav, PFA chairperson and politician from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Maneka Gandhi decried his alleged engagement in the illegal trade of snake venom. Additionally, an episode on November 4 of the previous year saw him briefly detained for questioning by the police in Kota, Rajasthan, while traveling with companions, but he was ultimately released.
This ongoing saga not only underscores the delicate balance between celebrity and legality but also beckons questions about the broader use of controlled substances in high-profile circles. With the next chapter set to unfold in the Gurugram court, all eyes will be on whether justice will take a stand or if celebrity status will sway the scale.
