Earlier this week, HopNews told readers a story was coming that would matter to every family in town. This is that story.
At 5 P.M. on September 30, 2025, a five-year-old boy was happily riding his bike on the sidewalk in his neighborhood. All was good in his world—until a neighbor’s white Tesla suddenly reversed into him with enough force to knock him off his bike and push him several feet into the street.
The sickening sound of the impact, followed by the screams of the boy and his terrified friends, still haunts neighbors. Not only because of what happened that day but because of what happened afterward:
- The driver did not call 911 to report hitting the child or the child’s injuries.
- Driver accounts of what happened—that shifted over time.
- A procedural error in the original complaint led to a court ruling that sent the matter back to an earlier stage, resulting in the dismissal of charges.
- The charges were later reinstated. Then the felony charge was dropped again.
Injuries that required specialist care
- Concussion
- Eye injuries (double vision for over a month)
- Cheek laceration requiring stitches and future plastic surgery
- Bruises and swelling on his face and eye
Due to the extent of his injuries, the child was under the care of the following specialists: a neurologist, an ophthalmologist, and a plastic surgeon at Boston Children’s Hospital. He is still dealing with the psychological effects of the trauma and most likely will need plastic surgery on his cheek.
He was rushed back to the emergency room twice in the days following the accident.
How did this happen?
That depends on who you ask and which version you get.
Officer Robert Ekross responded to a report of a juvenile struck by a motor vehicle on Walnut Way (incident report 25-014846). At the scene, the child, a five-year-old boy, was shaking and could not remember what happened—later attributed to shock from the accident, a concussion, and fear. The boy thought he had done something wrong.
From the incident report
[Officer Ekross wrote,] “I went to this [Vellanki] residence and spoke with the wife and children of ARUN VELLANKI. They [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. ARUN brought [the child] home and explained to the family what had happened. I spoke with ARUN on the phone because he had since left to go to work, and he confirmed this recollection of events.”
- The video later showed that the child did not veer to the right as Vellanki and his wife—who did not witness the accident—told the police.
- When Vellanki brought the child home, the boy’s mother called her husband, Divya Shah, at work. Shah immediately called 911 (now, 28 minutes after the accident).
- Vellanki didn’t tell the child’s mother that he brought her son into his house.
- According to the child’s father, he and his wife did not know the Vellankis; they were not friends. Their children did not play together.
Thankfully, the boy was wearing a helmet, and the car Vellanki drove was a Tesla—because it stopped automatically.
Emergency room
Once the child calmed down and felt safe, he told his father that he, in fact, remembered what had happened. However, he hesitated to tell the police because his recollection didn’t match what the Vellankis told him.
The child told his dad that he did not veer to the right and run into the car. Rather, the vehicle backed out quickly and hit him as he crossed the driveway, knocking him off his bike and pushing him into the road.
When Vellanki brought him into their home, both Vellanki and his wife cleaned blood from his face. According to the child, both Villanki and his wife told him that he was at fault for riding so fast, which caused him to run into their car. The child was made to believe that he had done something wrong.
The Shahs returned home from the emergency room at 3 A.M. the following morning.
Shah learns his son was taken into a stranger’s home
Shah was alarmed to learn that his son had been taken into a stranger’s home. However, since his son is only five, he wanted to confirm what had happened.
The next day, Shah and Vellanki spoke by phone. Then Shah and a couple of his neighbors went to the Vellankis’ home to speak with him in person. This is what they learned:
- Vellanki admitted that he brought the child into his home for “five minutes” to “clean the blood from his face.”
- Vellanki and his wife told Shah and his friends that the boy was riding his bike at 30 mph when he veered right and struck the Tesla.
- Vellanki repeatedly asked Shah, “Why did you call 911?”
- Shah asked Vellanki for his Ring camera footage. Vellanki said there was none.
- When asked about the Tesla video, Velanki said there was no camera footage because it didn’t register as an accident.
Clarification
Video timestamp shows the accident occurred at 5:19 P.M., and according to the Shah family, Vellanki returned the boy home at 5:33 P.M. This indicates the child was under Vellanki’s control for about 14 minutes—nearly three times longer than the five minutes stated in Vellanki’s police report.
The 5-year-old, who had just been struck by a car and suffered a concussion, was allegedly told it was his fault. His trembling upon arriving home is understandable.
The story shifts—incident 25-014568 (Supplemental Report)
Two days later, on October 2, Shah went to police headquarters to report that his son remembered what had happened.
[Officer Ekross wrote] SHAH came to the Hopkinton Police Headquarters to follow up with me regarding this incident. He wanted to see if charges were being taken out and then stated that VELLANKI hit his son with his car. [The child] now remembered what had happened and said he was struck as he was going down the hill.
DIVYA also said that he was upset that VELLANKI had brought [his son] inside to take care of his wounds and wanted him charged for that. I informed him that I would look into this incident further, but charges were unlikely based on the facts I previously gathered.
Officer Ekross interviews the boy
Officer Ekross went to the Shah family home and spoke directly to the child. He wrote that the boy said he was riding on the sidewalk and did not veer into the driveway, then the boy demonstrated the crash with toy cars—showing he was struck by the rear end of the vehicle as he tried to ride by.
Officer Ekross called Vellanki and asked him to come to the station. When Vellanki and his wife arrived, Vellanki’s account changed.
This time, Vellanki explained that, as his vehicle approached the sidewalk, the 5-year-old struck the rear right side of the car, unlike the first statement that the child turned into the driveway and hit the car.
[Officer Ekross wrote] that [Vellanki said he] was exiting his driveway slowly and looking around for pedestrians. As his vehicle approached the sidewalk, [the child] struck the back right of his vehicle. They [Vellanki’s] know [the child], and he plays with their son frequently, so they thought the right thing would be to take him inside [to treat] the cut on his face and then bring him home.
[Vellanki said he] also checked for video footage from his Tesla, but none was saved because the vehicle did not register it as an accident. [Ekross continued,] Based on the facts gathered. No actions by VELLANKI were criminal, and no charges will be pressed.
Officer Ekross’ statements were written before the video surfaced. Did the families know each other? Shah said NO; Vellanki said YES.
A third version: “Reversing slowly… a ‘tink’”
On October 5, Divya Shah brought a neighbor’s Nest camera footage to HPD. Officer Ekross then asked Vellanki to return to the HPD headquarters. This time, when Vellanki and his wife arrived, Ekross requested written statements; both refused, but they agreed to speak with him.
According to the police report, Vellanki said the following
- The impact was just a quiet “tink.”
- He was reversing slowly out of the driveway.
- As he entered the sidewalk, “he and the child met,” causing the injury.
- The cut was likely from the 5-year-old hitting his face on the handlebars.
- The child never fell off his bike.
- He and his wife brought the 5-year-old inside for about five minutes to clean the wound, then brought him home.
Warning: this video is disturbing!
Zoom in on the video. At the top of the screen, the child is seen coasting down the paved sidewalk until he is hit by a white Tesla driven by Arun Vellanki. Listen to the sound of the crash that Vellanki described as a soft “tink.” (So soft that there was no video from the Tesla, as it did not register an accident…) At the end, Vellanki can be heard telling the child, “You did this, you hit the car!”
The crash
[Officer Ekross wrote] …In the video, you can see VELLANKI pull into his driveway in his white Tesla, and [the child,] riding [his bike] down the hill on his bike. The vehicle reverses quickly as [the child] is passing by and strikes him. It made a loud sound from the impact and knocked [the boy] to the ground and pushed him several feet into the roadway. VELLANKI is seen going to the back of his vehicle and helping [the boy] to his feet. He then props the bike up and walks with him out of the camera’s view.
DIVYA expressed that he wanted VELLANKI charged and that he was upset that he brought his son inside to clean his cut. DIVYA stated that SAHIL had suffered a concussion, needed 3 or 4 stitches on his face, and is now having vision issues in his right eye and needs to go see a specialist.
Not being completely honest…
…[Officer Ekross wrote] I told VELLANKI that I had footage of this incident and did not believe he was being completely honest about what had happened. He confirmed his statements were accurate to what he had remembered and again stated that [the boy] did not fall. He described the impact as making a quiet “tink” sound.
- The boy was not pedaling; he coasted down the hill.
- He was not riding at 30 mph as Velanki stated.
- Vellanki hit the child, knocking him off his bike and pushing him into the road. (After insisting (before the video surfaced) that the boy did not fall).
- After walking off camera with the child, Vellanki can be heard saying, “You did this, you hit the car.”
- Vellanki misled the police 3 times, per Officer Ekross’ report 25-014846: “He then made misleading statements to me during my investigation on 9/30/2025, 10/03/2025, and 10/05/2025.”
Application for criminal complaint
The criminal complaint 25-014846 was filed by HPD for the following charges:
- Chapter 268 Section 13/B – Obstruction of Justice/Witness Intimidation (felony)
- Chapter 90 Section 24 – Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle (misdemeanor)
October 29, 2025, Arraignment in Framingham District Court
When filing the criminal complaint, the HPD checked the box marked “with notice.” As a result, Vellanki’s attorney, Martin Green, filed a motion to remand the case to the clerk-magistrate for a hearing prior to arraignment.
Was this a procedural error?
What is a remand?
Think of rewinding a movie to the start. Because HPD checked the “with notice” box, the judge can send the case back to before anyone is officially charged. And that’s precisely what happened.
Assistant District Attorney Andrew Mange objected, but Judge Matthew Leo McGrath granted the motion to remand the case. The remand returned the case to the stage prior to the filing of charges against Vellanki, and both charges associated with the incident, including the felony charge, were dismissed.
When the judge agrees with the defense attorney, he/she tells the courtroom clerk to remand the case to a clerk’s hearing. That means the defendant (Vellanki) did not get Arraigned on the charges in that complaint. (Charges dropped, for now.)
Clerk magistrate hearing
A clerk magistrate hearing is used to determine whether or not the defendant should be charged with the alleged crime in the first place. If the clerk magistrate determines that there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime, the complaint is issued, and the defendant is Arraigned on that complaint.
Definition of probable cause at a clerk magistrate hearing
Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances would lead a “reasonably discreet and prudent” person to believe a crime was committed. This is substantially less evidence than needed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—in a jury trial.
December 9, clerk magistrate private hearing
On Dec. 9, 2025, a private hearing was held before a clerk magistrate, during which neither the victim’s parent, Divya Shah, nor his lawyer was allowed to attend.
The hearing resulted in the court issuing a summons complaint 2549CR002125, this time listing only one charge: negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The felony charge of witness intimidation/Obstruction of Justice was dropped. Again.
HopNews reached out to Vellanki’s attorney
We are grateful to attorney Martin Green for offering the following statement:
In this case, the Hopkinton Police applied for the issuance of two complaints against the defendant. In their application for these complaints, the police requested that the defendant be granted a Clerk/Magistrate’s hearing on their application.
Despite the police request that the defendant be granted a Clerk/Magistrate’s hearing, two complaints were issued without a hearing.
Defendant brought the matter before the Court in a hearing at which both the police and defendant were represented. The Court ruled that the Defendant was entitled to a Clerk/Magistrate’s hearing on the police application for the issuance of the two complaints. The court then dismissed the two complaints that were filed without a Clerk/Magistrate’s hearing.
The Clerk/Magistrate’s hearing was held. At the Clerk/Magistrate’s hearing the Hopkinton Police were represented by the Hopkinton police prosecutor. The Clerk/Magistrate found no probable cause existed to believe that the defendant had committed the offense charged in one of the requested complaints and refused to issue it. The Clerk/Magistrate did issue a complaint on the other charge.
No other person or lawyer was involved in any of these proceedings. The only complaint pending is the one issued by the Clerk/Magistrate after the hearing.
Arraignment is scheduled
This new case is marked pending, and an arraignment is scheduled for Jan. 23, 2026, at 11:00 A.M. in the Framingham District Court, Courtroom 1.
Thus far, ADA Andrew Mange of the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office has not confirmed that reinstatement of felony or additional charges will be pursued in this case. He said that he’d look at the evidence before the arraignment on January 23.
Questions Remain
- Why did Officer Ekross file the criminal complaint, “with hearing?” Was that a mistake? Or did he mean to do that—if so, why?
- Why did Clerk Magistrate Robert Jubinville drop the felony charge of Witness Intimidation?
- Does a clerk magistrate have the authority to drop a felony charge?
- After reviewing the evidence, Will ADA Andrew Mange reinstate the felony charge on January 23?
What the family hopes to achieve
This is no longer just a Vellanki car accident story. It’s a test of whether video evidence can be neutralized by procedure, by police error, or by judges, clerk magistrates, and the ADA who can’t be bothered to look at the evidence, and whether they can erase accountability. And whether a family must fight twice: first for their child’s recovery, and then for the legal system to recognize what happened.
A 5-year-old child was hit on a sidewalk. The video, according to police, shows the Tesla reversing quickly into him. The injuries are real, ongoing, and documented.
The family is still waiting for the system to treat the case like what it is: a preventable crash with devastating consequences—and a community’s demand that the law not look away
Next Steps
Boston 25 News reporter Ted Daniel is expected to air a story on this case early next week, likely Monday evening. We look forward to his broadcast.
Another major Boston television news outlet is also planning coverage of this story. We will keep readers updated as additional details become available.
The arraignment on January 23 at 11 a.m. in Framingham District Court, Courtroom 1, is open to the public for anyone who wishes to show support for the boy and his family.
And, perhaps now, my continued interjection to the concept of the separated Main St ‘bike lane’ on 6% grades, with I forget how many driveway crossings, registers.
Kudos for this work, and bringing this to light. Thank you.
If you cause harm, you are responsible.
Wasn’t the investigating officer just promoted to sergeant? Again HPD rewards poor performance but has no problem firing an officer who tried to defend a victim of sexual abuse by a HPD member. I have no confidence in the HPD management team or the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office. They have both failed the people of Hopkinton. I so hope this child makes a full recovery.
I think it’s abundantly clear that fault rests with the court, not the officer. Probable cause clearly exists for both charges. Why the court dismissed the charges is a fair question, but Officer Ekross is a good officer who doesn’t deserve to be disparaged.
That correct but the investigation was done by the child’s family not HPD. Where is our all star detective sergeant? This was serious enough for the department not the responding officer to do a good investigation. This was a HPD management mistake not a Sergeant Ekross issue but his name is attached therefore his superiors have failed everyone involved.
This is terrible! I hope that this little boy makes a full recovery. What a traumatic experience for this poor family.
So, my understanding is that it’s OK to hit a child on his bicycle then take him into your home without his parents knowledge, lie about multiple things and get away with it all. Come on HPD, you can do better than this. HPD has gone downhill in the last few years, imo!!
Just the fact that the driver’s story changed multiple times is absurd. No compassion at all for the boy and absolutely no responsibility for his actions.
Bottom line: He is simply trying to weasel out of it
Shame on anyone who would intimidate and gaslight a 5 year old CHILD after causing them bodily harm, all in an effort to escape the consequences of your negligent actions. SHAME.
I hope the child makes a full (physical) recovery, and the parents get them some help to deal with what had to be a terribly traumatic experience.
I hope the kid recovers, and the driver gets punished for what he did. I know Arun. my wife used to work as a contractor for a company under his. He runs an IT consulting firm. He never paid people on time, and I personally know a few others in a similar situation. He also runs his company by applying for fake H1B visas, taking money from recently graduated students. Karma never leaves anyone behind.
Sounds like a great follow up story. You should provide all your receipts to HopNews for more investigation.
We removed Vellanki’s comment as it was a personal attack. However, if he can provide proof of his claims, we will write a follow up!
As a human being, I cannot imagine responding this way after injuring a child—let alone being a parent.
This situation is both shocking and upsetting.
Forget about all his poor decisions; Mr. Vellanki’s conduct following this incident reflects a troubling lack of character, empathy, and moral responsibility. Being a father himself, he and his wife, should be ashamed of themselves. This very well could have been their child.
My heart goes out to this little boy and his family. I sincerely hope he is okay both physically and emotionally, and that they receive the transparency and accountability they deserve.
God Speed lil dude!
We should all show up on the 26th and demand full justice for that 5 year old boy. Lived in Hopkinton 20 years it turned to crap so we moved out
Why did the Tesla sit and wait in the street before pulling in the driveway?
Who thinks its then normal to pull into a driveway and immediately reverse back to the street without looking?
On first assessment of the video, the driver appears to have done it intentionally.
Making it far worse than your reporting focuses on.
We know Massachusetts police and judicial system are about to get overhauled after the Karen Read Case and all blue state system corruption failures.
So much shit to clean up in this town and state.
I feel bad for the boy.
There was a reason 911 was not called. The video shows you why.
What do you mean there was a reason that 911 was not called?
I think you are making assumptions as to what is going on with the driver. Perhaps he was correcting his parking job.
It looks like the little boy is not paying attention. He is looking at his friend who is racing down the middle of the street. I hear the little boy saying, “I am winning!” as he crashes into the car. Notice his feet are not on the pedals. The boy never tried to stop because he was not paying attention.
This is a 5-year old boy – where are his parents?
Their is no law in MA which states that parents has to be with the child when he is playing outside near his home and in the same community. Also the child was wearing helmet and was on the sidewalk following the rules, not pedaling due to the downhill slope.
Additionally, the child who was hit lives on the same lane and was riding on a common area.
Parents are expected to provide reasonable supervision, not constant supervision!!
I think DCF would take a different stance than what you state. Yes parents are expected to provide reasonable supervison – there wasn’t any in this case!
The 5-year old does not live on that street. The 5-year old was not paying attention and hit the car. The car did not hit the child – big difference.
His feet were not on the pedals because yes he was going downhill rather quickly which means he was not acting responsibly. How does one ensure to slow down or to stop? By keeping your feet on the pedals and paying attention to what is going on in front of you.
The child DOES live on the street where he was hit.
He was travelling ~ 9 – 10 mph. That speed was determined by observing the speed of rotation of the wheels. That is the opinion of a nationally known expert witness in the field of bike accidents.
He is a five year old male. 🙂. We ‘adults’ are supposed to lookout for kids doing dumb things.
You are incorrect on the mechanics and the law. First, regarding the bike: taking feet off the pedals while going downhill is how a child prepares to stop either to use hand brakes or to put their feet on the ground. Keeping feet on the pedals and pedaling is what increases speed. It looks like he was preparing to stop because he saw a car pulling into a driveway.
No one expects a car that has just pulled into a driveway to immediately throw it in reverse. The driver reversing has the absolute responsibility to ensure it is safe to proceed. The child had the right of way to proceed straight. The driver operated negligently by reversing without paying attention and acted irresponsibly after the accident.
Furthermore incidents like this are investigated by HPD and DCF. The fact that the driver was charged speaks volumes. Blaming a 5-year-old victim for a negligent driver’s actions is a disgrace.
Watch the video from 0:28-0:31. The boy has the impact with the rear of the car, which means the car hit him. Had he crashed into the car, like you suggest, he would have hit the side of the car and he would not have fallen on the road. Clearly the force on the child was from his right (by the moving car) and not from the front.
Its one thing questioning the absence of parents/guardians, its another trying to defend the irresponsible driving and callous behavior after the accident.
God bless the owner of the camera who was willing to share the footage. Otherwise, we might have been led to believe that it was all the 5-yr old and his parent’s fault.
Who lets a 5 year old ride a bike unsupervised enough to not see that he was not on the street anymore?
Obv the driver is at fault. And never should have taken the child into their home.
The driver is 100% at fault for the accident.
Shouldn’t a kindergarten age child be supervised? The whole thing was avoidable.
“A young child was struck by a driver, and despite clear fault, no action has been taken. An appropriate steps should be taken to ensure justice and prevent future harm.”
IS there any update to this story?
Yes, it will likely be published tomorrow. Thanks for asking!
Any other guesses as to when there will be an update?
It will be published shortly. We were waiting to make sure that we could publish the police reports
A month later and still no official update despite staff comments of “probably tomorrow” (more than a month ago) and “shortly” (a month ago) AND a comment made weeks ago with a brief update for those of us trying to follow what many feel is an important story and yet even that can’t get posted? Why has the story been buried?
Why was the H1B comment about Vellanki taken down? ICE and DHS need to step in and investigate his firm for visa fraud and other allegations immediately.
If anyone else is still following this story, the hearing went ahead late on the day on January 23rd where the sole charge was negligent operation of a motor vehicle (a misdemeanor) to which Mr. Vellanki pleaded not guilty. There was to be a pre-trial hearing on February 23rd but no publicly available information on whether it was held/any results. One presumes as a misdemeanor this will all quickly fade away with only a small fine and/or traffic school attendance.
There is a pre-trial hearing on Friday (March 6) at 9a in Framingham district Court. An article will be forthcoming later today or tomorrow morning.