Justice Saurabh Srivastava dismissed Yadav’s petition after considering the statements in the chargesheet and the FIR and said the veracity of such allegations would be tested in the trial.
Appearing for Yadav, senior counsel Navin Sinha and advocate Nipun Singh, argued the person who filed the FIR against Yadav was incompetent to file it under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Yadav, the counsel said, was neither present at the party which allegedly took place in Noida nor anything was recovered from him.
He was arrested in March, last year, by Noida police in connection with the case.
Yadav’s counsel argued no snakes, narcotic or psychotropic substances were recovered from him aside from the fact that no causal link was established between the applicant and the co-accused.
Though the informant was no longer an Animal Welfare Officer, he filed the FIR showing himself to be one, the counsel added.
Calling Yadav a “well-known influencer” and someone who appears in multiple reality shows on television, the counsel said his involvement in the FIR garnered “much media attention”.
Influenced by the attention, as a result, the police officials attempted to further sensationalise the matter by invoking Sections 27 and 27A NDPS Act immediately after arresting the applicant, it was argued.
The provisions deal with punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders, respectively.
However, the counsel argued, the police officials failed to substantiate the additional charges and, therefore, the same were dropped.
On other hand, Additional Advocate General Manish Goel opposed the plea and said the police’s investigation showed Yadav supplied snakes to people from whom recovery was made. PTI CORR RAJ AMK AMK
