The FIR against Anjum was registered on July 12, 2025, by the Begusarai police, following allegations that his content disrupted official proceedings. This move came shortly after Tejashwi Yadav, a prominent political figure, stepped into the fray, signaling the political undertones of the case. Anjum’s role as a YouTuber has come under scrutiny, with critics arguing that his commentary has crossed the line from journalism to interference in administrative functions. The comparison with the case of Manish Kashyap, another YouTuber, is inevitable. Kashyap’s arrest saw the public disclosure of his bank details by the Bihar Police, revealing transactions amounting to Rs 42 lakh across four accounts. This precedent raises questions about whether the police will adopt a similar approach with Anjum, potentially exposing his financial records to public scrutiny.
The legal framework under which Anjum has been charged includes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as indicated in the FIR document. These laws are designed to maintain order and prevent the misuse of media platforms to incite unrest or hinder governmental processes. If convicted, Anjum could face imprisonment, a scenario that would depend on the evidence presented and the judicial process. The Bihar Police’s past actions, such as the swift arrest and public shaming of Kashyap, suggest they are not hesitant to take stringent measures against influencers perceived as threats to public order.
The involvement of Tejashwi Yadav adds a layer of complexity. His decision to support Anjum indicates a strategic political move, possibly to rally his base or counter the narrative pushed by rival factions. However, this also places the police in a delicate position, balancing political pressures with legal obligations. The question of whether the Bihar Police will have the courage to jail Anjum, as they did with Kashyap, hinges on their ability to act impartially. Public disclosure of Anjum’s bank details, as seen in Kashyap’s case, would be a bold step, potentially deterring other influencers but also risking accusations of overreach.
The broader context involves the growing influence of YouTubers in shaping political discourse, often labeled as “godi media” by critics when their content aligns with certain agendas. Anjum’s past support for Kashyap’s arrest, which was endorsed by Yadav, now ironically places him in a similar predicament. This flip-flop highlights the opportunistic nature of digital influencers, who switch narratives based on convenience. The public in Bihar is keenly observing this “godi godi” game, where allegiances shift, and legal actions become tools in political battles.
Should Anjum be jailed, the implications would be far-reaching. His incarceration could set a precedent for regulating online content, sending a message to other YouTubers about the consequences of overstepping legal boundaries. However, it might also escalate tensions, with his supporters potentially viewing it as a suppression of free speech. The police would need to ensure a transparent investigation to avoid perceptions of bias, especially given the political backing Anjum enjoys.
In conclusion, the case against Ajit Anjum is a test of the Bihar Police’s resolve and the judiciary’s independence. While the legal process must take its course, the public’s gaze is fixed on whether the police will replicate their approach with Kashyap or succumb to political pressures. The outcome will likely influence the dynamics of digital influence in Bihar’s political landscape, underscoring the need for a balanced approach to media accountability.