ANURAG TRIPATHI vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Advocate - G.A. — CRLR/7078/2025
Case under Andhra Pradesh and Madras (Alteration of Boundaries) Act Section 4,39-4. Disposed: -- on 17th February 2026.
CNR: UPHC015864472025
Filing Number
CRLR/
Filing Date
30-Oct-2025
Registration No
CRLR/7078/2025
Registration Date
03-Nov-2025
Judge
Abdul Shahid
Coram
Abdul Shahid
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
REVISION ( 401300 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 90 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Misc.
Decision Date
17-Feb-2026
Nature of Disposal
--
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ANURAG TRIPATHI
Adv. SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Advocate - G.A.
-
2.RENU RAI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Feb-2026
—
Abdul Shahid
-
17-Feb-2026
Abdul ShahidView PDF
The Allahabad High Court dismissed Anurag Tripathi's criminal revision petition challenging a charge sheet filed against him under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act for alleged human trafficking. Though Tripathi claimed he was merely a driver not named in the original FIR with no role in the offense, the court found sufficient material on record—including statements from arrested accused Reshma implicating him in the trafficking conspiracy—to uphold the charge framing, deferring detailed examination of evidentiary gaps to trial stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Feb-2026
—
Chawan Prakash
-
13-Jan-2026
Chawan PrakashView PDF
-
13-Jan-2026
—
Abdul Shahid
-
06-Jan-2026
—
Prashant Mishra-I
-
04-Dec-2025
Prashant Mishra-IView PDF
-
04-Dec-2025
—
Abdul Shahid
-
27-Nov-2025
—
Abdul Shahid
-
20-Nov-2025
—
Devendra Singh-I
-
14-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. CRLR/7078/2025
The Allahabad High Court dismissed Anurag Tripathi's criminal revision petition challenging a charge sheet filed against him under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act for alleged human trafficking. Though Tripathi claimed he was merely a driver not named in the original FIR with no role in the offense, the court found sufficient material on record—including statements from arrested accused Reshma implicating him in the trafficking conspiracy—to uphold the charge framing, deferring detailed examination of evidentiary gaps to trial stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts