What if the Video Had Never Surfaced?

On September 30, 2025, a Tesla struck a 5-year-old boy riding his bicycle on a Hopkinton sidewalk. The impact knocked the boy to the pavement and pushed him several feet into the street. The driver was Arun Vellanki.

>> RELATED — 5-Year-Old Hit by Car in Hopkinton: Family Seeks Justice

Five months later, Vellanki faces one misdemeanor charge. The child’s family and many in the community want to know why. Also, would there be any accountability at all if security video had not captured the crash?

Crash on Walnut Way

The crash happened in the early evening on Walnut Way. The boy rode his bike along the sidewalk. Vellanki’s Tesla reversed out of his driveway and struck the child, knocking him off his bike. The boy’s head hit the pavement. He bled from his face and appeared stunned.

What the Driver Did Next

Vellanki did not call 911. Instead, he lifted the injured boy and walked him into his home. The boy did not know Arun Vellanki; the families are not friends, despite what Vellanki said in police reports. Inside, Vellanki and his wife wiped the blood from the child’s face with paper towels. They did not request an ambulance or call the boy’s parents from the scene.

The child later described feeling scared and confused. The family’s attorney has raised concerns about the decision not to seek immediate medical help.

Crash-Day Timeline: September 30, 2025

5:19 P.M. — A Tesla driven by Arun Vellanki backs out of his driveway and strikes the 5-year-old boy on his bicycle. The boy hits the pavement and is pushed several feet into the road. Video shows Vellanki helping the boy up and walking him out of the camera’s view.

5:33 P.M. — Vellanki drives the boy home. The drive takes less than one minute.

5:33 P.M. — The child’s mother phoned her husband, Divya Shah. He was picking up their daughter on his way home from work. Understandably upset, she told him there was an emergency. Several minutes passed before he learned that his son had been in a crash.

5:47 P.M. — Shah immediately calls 911 and asks for medical help.

5:50 P.M. — Hopkinton police Officer Ekross receives the report and responds to the Shah home. He finds the boy shaking, afraid, and showing signs of a concussion.

5:51 P.M. — The ambulance arrives. First responders examine the child for several minutes, then transport him to the hospital.

Approximately 6:00 P.M. — The officer drives to the Vellanki home to speak with the driver. Neither Vellanki nor his Tesla is there.

Conflicting Accounts

At the Vellanki house, the officer speaks with Vellanki’s wife. She tells him that her husband was backing out of the driveway when the boy rode down the hill, turned right into the driveway, and struck the car while it was still there.

The officer then calls Vellanki by phone. Vellanki agrees with his wife’s account.

That story collapses when security video from a neighbor’s camera surfaces. The video (below) shows the Tesla in motion, reversing toward the sidewalk, and striking the boy as he rides past.

In Police Report 25-014846, Officer Ekross described it this way: “The vehicle reverses quickly as [the child] is passing by and strikes him. It made a loud sound from the impact and knocked [the child] to the ground and pushed him several feet into the roadway.”

Three Key Contradictions

The driver’s version of events changed over time. Records and video show several contradictions. Officer Ekross documented three.

First contradiction: On the day of the crash, Vellanki and his wife told police the child turned right into their driveway and hit their car.

Officer Ekross described the conversation in Police Report 25-014568: “[Vellanki and his wife] stated that he was reversing his vehicle but was still in the driveway when [the child] came down the hill on his bike and veered to the right. He struck the rear of his vehicle and hit the pavement.”

The Video Shows Something Different.

Second contradiction: After the video emerged, Vellanki changed his account. He no longer claimed the child turned to the right and ran into him.

Officer Ekross, in Police Report 25-014846, described that conversation: “VELLANKI now stated that as his vehicle approached the sidewalk, [the child] struck the back right of his vehicle. This statement now differed from their original statements, saying that [the child] had turned right into their driveway and struck the vehicle.”

Third contradiction: Vellanki repeatedly claimed that the child never fell off his bike. The video shows otherwise.

In Police Report 25-014846, Officer Ekross described why Vellanki was charged:

Chapter 90 Section 24 — Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Chapter 268 Section 13B — Misleading an Investigator in a Criminal Investigation

“… [the child] had never fallen off his bike …”

“I [Ekross] told VELLANKI that I had footage of this incident and did not believe he was being completely honest about what had happened. He confirmed that his statements were accurate as he remembered them and again stated that [the child] did not fall. He described the impact as making a quiet ‘tink’ sound.”

“Based on the above-listed facts, VELLANKI operated his motor vehicle in a negligent manner by quickly accelerating his vehicle in reverse and not properly yielding for pedestrians on the sidewalk. He then made misleading statements to me during my investigation on 9/30/2025, 10/03/2025 and 10/05/2025. Also, VELLANKI was issued a criminal application for negligent operation on MA.”

Other Contradictions

Beyond the three contradictions Officer Ekross documented, additional discrepancies emerged between Vellanki’s statements and the evidence.

Claim: The Tesla did not register a crash, which Vellanki offered as an explanation for why no vehicle camera footage existed. Evidence: Whether Tesla’s systems registered the impact does not change what the neighbor’s security camera recorded.

Claim: The 5-year-old cut his face on his handlebars. Evidence: The video shows the child thrown from his bike by the force of the collision. His head struck the pavement.

Claim: The child was riding his bike at 30 miles per hour. Evidence: The video shows a small child pedaling along a sidewalk at a normal pace.

Driver and Vehicle Leave the Scene

After dropping the boy at home, Vellanki left the neighborhood in the same Tesla that struck the child. According to Vellanki, he went to work. He left before the ambulance arrived. The Shah family questions why the police did not treat his departure as a possible attempt to avoid scrutiny and why more serious charges did not follow once the video came to light.

Someone who hits a child with their car at 5:19 P.M. is gone (in the car used to hit the child) by 6 P.M., before the ambulance arrives? He went to work at 6 P.M.?

Police Response

The Hopkinton Police Department’s stated mission is to “preserve life, protect property, and safeguard individual liberties.” The department pledges to “act with integrity and professionalism.”

In this case, the department did not conduct a full investigation after the crash. Officers initially accepted the driver’s account that the child rode into his car. According to the family, police closed the investigation twice before the video surfaced, relying on Vellanki’s statements. Only after an officer viewed the video did investigators revisit the case and seek a felony charge.

The Police Did Not Search For a Video

The child’s father recovered it from a neighbor.

After the video came to light, a felony charge was filed against Vellanki under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268, Section 13B. Officer Ekross’ report labels the charge “Obstruction of Justice.” The statute is formally titled “Intimidation of witnesses, jurors, and persons furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings.” The specific application here falls under the “misleading an investigator” provision of § 13B.

Felony charge under G.L. c. 268, § 13B

Elements of the Charge

Under the Massachusetts model jury instructions for intentionally misleading an investigator (Instruction 7.365), the Commonwealth must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant willfully misled another person, either directly or indirectly.
• The other person was a police officer, federal agent, or investigator.
• The defendant acted with the specific intent to impede, obstruct, delay, prevent, or otherwise interfere with a criminal investigation.
• An act is considered misleading if it is “reasonably likely to lead investigators to pursue or refrain from pursuing a course of investigation substantially different from the course they may have otherwise taken.”

The Shah family’s attorney argues that all elements are present and has urged the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office to reinstate the charge. Prosecutors have not done so.

What we Know

• Vellanki signed a criminal complaint, establishing that he knew of the investigation.
• Police reports indicate that his statements did not match what the video later showed.
• Officer Ekross documented misleading statements on three separate dates: September 30, October 3, and October 5, 2025.

Missed Opportunity

The Hopkinton Police and/or the district attorney could/should have investigated the following, at a minimum.

• Visit all the local car washes and auto body shops to see if Vellanki washed his car the evening of September 30 while he “went to work.” Note the police took one photo of the car, five days post-accident.
• Subpoena records from Tesla Corporation to see if the car “registered a crash.”
• Roped off the scene so it could be investigated. The bike remained in the Vellanki’s yard a couple of days.
• Photograph the bicycle. No photographs of the bike were taken. The bike is still unrideable.
• Looked for video footage. Fortunately, Divya Shah thought to do that.
• Interviewed neighbor for witness statements.
• Checked to see if the Shahs had been offered a settlement in exchange for not pursuing legal action; they had.

Court timeline

The court process has taken several turns. Some relate to the defense’s immigration questions.

October 29, 2025 — The case appears in Framingham District Court for what was scheduled to be an arraignment. The judge remands the case to a private court magistrate after the defense raises the issue of Vellanki’s immigration status. At that hearing, Vellanki first tells the court he has a green card, then corrects himself. He says his green card application has been approved, but he has not yet received the physical card.

The Shah family says they do not care about Vellanki’s immigration status. They care about accountability, their son’s safety, and the driver’s attempts to blame a 5-year-old child.

December 9, 2025 — A court magistrate holds a hearing and dismisses the criminal charge that was remanded from the October 29 session. The felony charge is dropped.

January 23, 2026 — The case returns to Framingham District Court. This time, the arraignment goes forward. Vellanki appears in person and pleads not guilty to negligent operation of a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor. The court releases him on personal recognizance and schedules a pretrial hearing for March 6 at 9 A.M.

March 6, 2026 — A 9 A.M. pretrial hearing is set in Framingham District Court. The hearing is open to the public. Residents may attend and observe.

Dropped Felony and Unanswered Questions

Court Magistrate Bob Jubinville dismissed the felony charge under § 13B. Assistant District Attorney Andrew Mange has not moved to reinstate it. No additional criminal charges have been added. The only pending charge is negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

The Shah family continues to ask why the felony charge was dropped after video evidence surfaced. They want to know why no more serious charges have been pursued for striking and injuring a small child.

A Pattern of Denial

Before the video appeared, Vellanki shared his version of events with neighbors on Walnut Way. In an email to the neighborhood homeowner’s association, he blamed the child for the crash. He described the boy as riding into his vehicle.

That email mirrors his first statements to the police. Both versions conflict with the video. The family views this as part of a pattern of denial and deflection. They say the driver tried to shift the blame from the beginning.

Email Claims vs. the Facts

Link to Email

Email to HOA: “… a young resident — unaccompanied at the time — was observed ringing doorbells along the upper section of Walnut Way (between 61-55) and then riding downhill at a high speed.”

Context: Ringing doorbells has nothing to do with the crash, nor is it a crime. The comment serves to characterize the child’s behavior in a negative light before describing the collision.

Fact: The child was not riding dangerously or fast. He was on the sidewalk.

Email to HOA: “Later, after the child developed some bruising, the family contacted emergency services. In response, an ambulance, a fire truck, and a police officer arrived at the scene.”

Fact: The family called 911 immediately upon learning their son had been hit by a car. The phrase “developed some bruising” understates injuries that included facial bleeding and signs of a concussion.

Email to HOA: “[Officer Ekross] advised [other children] directly to slow down and wear helmets.”

Context: This has nothing to do with the crash or the boy who was struck.

Fact: The Shah child was wearing a helmet when Vellanki’s Tesla hit him, as the video shows.

Email to HOA: “[Officer Ekross] emphasized the importance of simply checking in on the child — which we have continued to do.”

Fact: According to the Shahs, Vellanki called once to berate them for calling 911.

Email to HOA: “No case has been filed or is under investigation. Neither family has received any formal communication suggesting otherwise.”

Fact: Vellanki wrote this on October 2 at 9:17 P.M. Police Chief Joe Bennett emailed the boy’s mother the day before, on October 1 at 11 A.M.: “We will get back to you when the investigation is complete.”

Email to HOA: “… that the child involved was racing on a bike at a high speed at the time of the collision (not hit by a car).”

Fact: The security video shows the Tesla reversing out of the driveway and striking the child as he rides along the sidewalk at a normal pace.

Injuries and Lasting Impact

The boy suffered injuries to his face and head in the crash. His family reports ongoing physical and emotional effects. They say he still struggles with anxiety and fear. He is still in the care of several specialists.

Other children who saw the crash have also been affected. Parents report nightmares and renewed fear.

The family says they feel doubly injured. First, their kindergartner was struck and hurt. Then the driver and the system around him minimized what happened in their view.

What Happens Next

The legal process continues on March 6 at 9 A.M. at a pretrial hearing in Framingham District Court. Lawyers will discuss the case schedule, evidence, and any possible plea discussions.

Many questions remain. One of which is why the driver did not call 911. Another is why he left before the ambulance arrived. And finally, why did the investigation stop (twice) until the video forced it to restart? Shouldn’t HPD have investigated the case? Why did they believe Vellanki’s story without investigating?

And the question still hanging over Walnut Way is this: If the video had never surfaced, would anyone outside the Shah family know what really happened to a 5-year-old boy on a fall evening in Hopkinton?

This article will be updated following the March 6 pretrial hearing.

Police Reports and Video Evidence

The following documents detail the crash, the investigation, and the charges filed:

Police Report 25-014568 — Initial crash report documenting Vellanki’s first statement that the child veered to the right and ran into him.

Police Report 25-014568 Supplemental — Follow-up report after video evidence emerged.

Police Report 25-014846 — Officer Ekross’ report includes a review of the earlier reports. And why he added the felony charge to the negligent operation of a motor vehicle (Chapter 90, Section 24). Hint: for misleading an investigator in a criminal investigation (Chapter 268, Section 13B).

Video evidence

Warning: This Video is Disturbing.

Security camera footage shows the Tesla reversing out of the driveway and striking the child. At the end of the video, Vellanki can be heard telling the child, “You did this, you hit that car!”