HOPKINTON, Mass. — A Hopkinton family is seeking answers and justice after a proposed felony witness intimidation complaint against the neighbor who struck their child with his car was not supported during a private hearing they were barred from attending.
The incident occurred on September 30 on Walnut Way in Hopkinton. Surveillance footage of the crash shows a five-year-old boy riding his bicycle on a sidewalk just moments before being struck by a vehicle driven by Arun Vellanki. Vellanki was reversing out of his driveway, and the child was pushed into the road by his car. We are withholding the child’s name at the request of his family.
According to police reports, Vellanki did not call 911 following the impact. Instead, the boy’s family says he took the child into his own home to provide first aid.
Divya Shah, the boy’s father, expressed deep concern over the driver’s actions, noting that his son needed immediate medical care as he was later found to have a concussion and a wound to his face that required stitches.
Shah stated that he did not see the video evidence until five days after the accident. Up until that point, he says he was told his son was at fault for the collision.
The video evidence eventually prompted law enforcement to take a closer look at the driver’s account. Police reports indicate that Vellanki initially claimed the boy turned right into his vehicle and never actually fell off the bike. He also described the impact as “quiet”. An investigating officer characterized statements made by Vellanki on 3 separate occasions as “misleading”.
Peter Fogg, the Hopkinton based attorney representing the Shah family said, “the driver seems to have taken steps to mitigate his responsibility,” adding, “The motivations of the driver from the video seem to be more about protecting himself than the child.”
Based on the video, Vellanki was originally scheduled for a public arraignment on two charges: negligent operation of a motor vehicle and felony witness intimidation. However, the arraignment never took place. Attorney Fogg describes the disappearance of the felony charge as the result of a “technicality” leveraged by the defense to move the case to a closed-door magistrate session.
The Middlesex District Attorney’s Office, led by Marian Ryan, stated through a spokesperson that the private hearing proceeded despite their office’s formal objections. While the magistrate in that hearing found probable cause for the misdemeanor charge of negligent operation, they declined to issue the felony intimidation charge.
For the Shah family, the legal maneuvers have added a layer of frustration to an already traumatic recovery. Divya Shah emphasized that the emotional toll on his son has been significant and argued that the legal system should treat such incidents with the utmost gravity, regardless of whether the injuries were fatal.
The Shah family is currently petitioning the District Attorney’s office to upgrade the charges. While the D.A.’s office confirmed they are reviewing the case, Vellanki is expected to return to court later this month to face the remaining misdemeanor charge.
Statement from the Attorney for Arun Vellanki
Martin H. Green, legal counsel for Arun Vellanki provided his account of the case, noting that the Hopkinton Police initially requested a Clerk/Magistrate’s hearing when applying for the two criminal complaints. Despite this request, the complaints were initially issued without that hearing taking place.
The defense subsequently brought the matter before the Court, where both the police and the defendant were represented. The Court ruled that Vellanki was legally entitled to the Clerk/Magistrate’s hearing as originally requested and dismissed the two complaints that had been filed prematurely.
During the subsequent Clerk/Magistrate’s hearing, which was attended by the Hopkinton police prosecutor, the magistrate determined there was no probable cause to believe Vellanki committed the offense of witness intimidation and refused to issue that complaint. The magistrate did, however, find sufficient grounds to issue the complaint for negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Counsel noted that no other parties or outside lawyers were involved in these specific proceedings and confirmed that the only pending charge is the one issued following that hearing.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
©2026 Cox Media Group
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/7QOJU3BNCJERBNKJC5LWTBYFLU.png)
